Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRATION).

Mr. Moreing: I beg to present a petition signed by 210,000 British subjects relating to the position of the Jews in Europe and elsewhere, and making a Prayer to this Honourable House:
Your Petitioners humbly pray His Majesty's Government, in the name of humanity and justice, to increase facilities for the immigration into Palestine to the highest extent that its absorptive capacity will allow, so that they may, in accordance with the terms incorporated in the Mandate for Palestine, find a Home of Refuge, free from persecution, there to co-operate with their Arab neighbours for the mutual benefit of the two peoples.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

British Overseas Airways Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th day of June, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

British Overseas Airways Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill.

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WEST WALES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the fact that well over 50,000 applicants sought assistance during 1938 in the Swansea district of the Unemployment Assistance Board and that these figures reveal a serious unemployment position in West Wales, he will take steps to establish new industries in the area?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am aware of the unemployment position in West Wales, but except in the case of factories required directly for Government purposes, for example, the manufacture of armaments, the Government itself has no power to establish industrial undertakings. Several factories for the manufacture of munitions are, in fact, being established in the area to which the hon. Member refers. We are regularly drawing the attention of those proposing to establish new industries to the possibilities of this area.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state whether it is the intention this Session to deal with areas outside the Schedule of Special Areas as was promised at the beginning of the Session?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know whether that was stated at the beginning of this Session?

Mr. Brown: It has been stated more than once.

TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of factories on the Team Valley Trading Estate that are now in production; the number under construction; and the number of persons employed up to date?

Mr. E. Brown: On 31st May, 1939, 99 factories were occupied and in production on the Team Valley Estate. The number of persons employed in the factories was 2,525. Eight factories had been completed but had not then been occupied


by the tenants; nine were under construction for tenants who had agreed to lease them and 14 further tenants had been secured making a total of 130.

Mr. Stewart: Are any industries new to Durham being introduced on the estate, and is there still an inquiry from manufacturers and business men for these factories?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Mr. Charles Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in these factories trade unionists are being preferred and trade union rates of wages paid?

Mr. Brown: That is a separate question of which I should require notice.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these 2,500 are only a drop in the bucket in dealing with the unemployed in Durham, and has he any definite plans to deal with this problem?

Mr. Brown: They are growing, and, of course, the figures of unemployment in the county are dropping regularly month by month.

Mr. Stewart: Will the Minister answer the first part of my supplementary question as to whether any industries new to Durham are being introduced?

Mr. Brown: I thought that that was quite clear. The bulk of them are new industries.

CLOSED WOOLLEN MILLS, CARMARTHENSHIRE.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the closing of the woollen mills in the Drefach and Velinore district of Carmarthenshire; how many weavers from this district are now unemployed; and whether he will consult with other Government Departments with a view to placing orders for these mills in view of the distress in this district?

Mr. E. Brown: Two mills at Drefach normally employing 14 workpeople are at present temporarily closed and 22 men and 12 women weavers are registered as unemployed at the Llandyssul Employment Office which includes, among others, the Drefach—Velindre area. One mill at Velindre and one at Llandyssul were temporarily closed towards the end of May, but these mills, employing together about

100 persons, resumed full-time working on 12th June. I understand that the improvement is due in part to the fact that Government flannel contracts have recently been placed with certain firms in the area. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the districts concerned are included in the list of areas to which a preference is given, other things being equal, in the allocation of Government contracts. As regards the last part of the question, following upon a deputation received on 12th May last in my Department from the county council of Carmarthenshire, the attention of the contracting Departments was drawn to the facilities afforded in the county for the production of flannel.

Mr. Hopkin: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to send down an officer of his Department to report as to the conditions in this district, and to see if there are any possibilities at all for developing the leading industry there?

Mr. Brown: I do not think there is any need for special inquiry as far as I know. If the hon. Member desires to bring any facts to my notice of which we are not aware, I shall be very glad to have them.

Air-Raid Precautions Work.

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Labour why circulars Nos. 28 and 29, prohibiting the employment of men over 30 years of age in erecting air-raid shelters, have been issued; and, in view of the fact that able-bodied men over the prescribed age have been refused such work at the Hull Employment Exchange, with consequent distress to themselves and their families, whether he will consider the immediate withdrawal of the ban?

Mr. E. Brown: The instructions relating to the recruitment of men for certain constructional work in connection with the making of trenches and the erection of shelters are intended to secure that, in accordance with representations which have been made to me constantly in this House and elsewhere, preference should be given in the performance of this work, as between applicants who are equally suitable for the work, to those who have been longest unemployed and particularly to the long-term unemployed in the younger age groups for whom a spell of regular work would be especially valuable. Subject to this preference, there is nothing in the instructions to preclude


the employment of suitable men over the age of 30 years on this work. As I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) on 18th May, it is my desire that the instructions, which are elastic in their nature, should be applied in each area with due regard to local circumstances, and in view of the hon. Member's question I am asking the Divisional Controller to review the position at Hull.

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an unemployed man, aged 29, has been refused air-raid precautions work at the Hull Employment Exchange because he signs on daily and not twice a week; and will he give the reason for this ruling?

Mr. Brown: I have been unable to identify this case. A person signing the unemployed register daily would be a casual worker and would not normally fall within the category of long unemployed for whom a preference is given in filling these vacancies.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that instructions have been issued that no unemployed man over the age of 30 is to be engaged in the erection of air-raid shelters; and, as this age limit debars all air-raid wardens from being engaged in this work, their age limit being 30, will he have this age limit removed as it is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the unemployed generally?

Mr. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Windsor).

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have made requests from this side time and again that in any work available a certain percentage of elderly unemployed men should be engaged; is not this a case in which work could be found for a percentage of them and yet we have a regulation forbidding men of over 30 years of age to be employed?

Mr. Brown: That is a misconstruction. I have already pointed out that there is no such inhibition. What is necessary here is to meet the continuous demand that the younger long-term unemployed should

have a preference in this kind of work, for which they are particularly suited.

Mr. Stewart: Has that instruction been issued in Durham County?

Mr. Lawson: Is there not something wrong in connection with this circular when many areas, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, have misinterpreted it?

Mr. Brown: If I thought that, I would give instructions to make it clear, but I do not think that is so.

SPECIAL AREAS COMMISSIONER.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss WILKINSON.

9. To ask the Minister of Labour whether he will consider immediately putting an end to the office of Commissioner for the Special Areas, or at least making considerable alteration in the functions of his Department?

Miss Wilkinson: May I point out that this question has been so changed from what I wrote as to give an entirely opposite meaning? What I asked was, whether the Minister of Labour is considering, and not whether he will consider.

Mr. Brown: The answer is the same: It is, "No, Sir."

Miss Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a dinner recently given to the Social Settlement, Cardiff, the senior officer of the settlement asked him to take some steps in view of the approaching winding-up of the office of the Special Commissioner?

Mr. Brown: I have given my answer.

Miss Wilkinson: May I send the right hon. Gentleman this document?

Mr. Brown: Yes, if the hon. Member cares to do so.

BENEFIT AND ASSISTANCE.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour the approximate cost of granting to unemployed persons an extra week's benefit or allowance; and if he will consider the desirability of granting such extra benefit and allowances to the unemployed in the first week in August, to enable them and their dependants to enjoy some of the advantages of the holiday season?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that without more precise particulars of what the hon. Member has in mind, I cannot estimate the cost of his proposal. The present legislation does not give power to grant such extra benefit and allowances and I could not undertake to seek power to carry out such a proposal as a part of unemployment insurance or assistance provisions.

Mr. Griffiths: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread feeling in the country that some extra benefit should be paid to those who have been unemployed for long periods, and will he consider the matter?

Mr. Brown: I have noted the fact more than once, but the hon. Member asks that a particular solution should be made.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not possible for the Minister to make regulations in regard to this matter as he does on other matters?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, I have not the power to do that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister consult the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: I shall be very glad to consult the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the representations made by the Liverpool and London Distillers, Limited, in regard to the voluntary pensions granted by this firm to employés discharged owing to reorganisation, that part of their unemployment benefit is being deducted because of these pension grants; and will he take action to end this and also return to the men the deductions made?

Mr. Brown: I assume that the hon. Member's question relates to unemployment assistance. I am informed by the Board that they have not been able to trace any application from a person in receipt of a pension from the firm in question. If such an application is received some part of the pension—the precise amount must necessarily depend on the circumstances—would, in accordance with the Board's usual practice, normally be allowed for the recipient's personal requirements. Where however,

the amount of the pension is clearly such as to provide entirely for the maintenance of the recipient and his dependants, it would not be possible for the Board to regard the applicant as being in need.

Mr. Logan: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that his Department knows nothing about the Liverpool and London Distillers, Limited? Is he aware that I have been informed that communications have been sent to the Ministry of Labour in regard to these men who are having deductions made from their unemployment benefit on account of these pensions? If the right hon. Gentleman has no information on the subject, will he have inquiries made?

Mr. Brown: I do not think it is possible. There is no test in connection with payments of this kind.

Mr. Logan: May I ask whether the Minister is prepared, in the case of voluntary pensions, to see that those pensions are protected and that there are no deductions from the unemployment benefit?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must be under a misapprehension I have pointed out to him that there is no possibility of a deduction in that case.

Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. If the Minister says he is not aware, surely if I know— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. George Hall: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Board who have no resources; the number whose resources are small and are disregarded; and the number who themselves, or other members of the households, have resources sufficient to be taken into account for means test by the Board?

Mr. Brown: The most recent information regarding the resources of applicants for unemployment assistance and their households relates to the position in October, 1938, and is summarised on page 64 of the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board for 1938 (Cd. 6021). More detailed information is given in Appendices VI and VII (pages 195–197) of that report

Mr. Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the resources of applicants and their households applying for assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board, made up of earnings, unemployment benefit, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, disability pensions; poor relief, workmen's compensation, National Health Insurance, reserve pay, maintenance and affiliation orders given at the courts, giving the total and each item separately?

Mr. Brown: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this information was given in the Annual Report for 1937, and will he instruct the Board to give this information in annual reports in future?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will find that my reply is a complete one.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman state now whether widows' and orphans' pensions, disability pensions, poor relief and workmen's compensation, are taken into consideration for the purpose of reducing the amount of allowances for applicants under the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will see the figures for each category in the tabulated statement I am circulating.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say now whether they are taken into consideration?

Mr. Brown: The Regulations provide for that in certain cases.

Following is the reply:

Estimates based on a 5 per cent, sample of cases current on 7th October, 1938, are as follow:

£


Earnings (including casual earnings of applicants)
13,157,600


Unemployment Insurance Benefit
1,691,900


Old age, widows', orphans' and blind persons' pensions
1.457,700


Disability and dependant's pensions
1,079,700


Outdoor relief
752,200


Workmen's compensation
143,000


National Health Insurance Benefit
284,600


Maintenance and affiliation orders
79,500


Service and service dependants' pensions
178,800


Superannuation
57,900


Voluntary allowances
166,100


Profit from boarders and sub-lets
138,900


Increase from capital, savings, property, etc.
61,800


Miscellaneous
170,000



19,419,700

SCOTLAND.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed workers in Scotland at 31st December last; the number unemployed at 31st May last; and the number of Irish workers who have settled in Scotland during the past five months?

Mr. E. Brown: The unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland at 12th December, 1938, and 15th May, 1939, numbered 262,896 and 221,645, respectively. These are the only dates in the months in question for which such figures are available. The total number of migrants from Eire who took out unemployment books in Scotland in the first five months of 19390020was 786, of whom 239 were temporary non-domiciled workers in agriculture.

ENCAMPMENTS (YOUNG MEN).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the success of the experiment begun in 1929, whereby unemployed men from the distressed areas were housed in camps for work on the Middle Level in connection with Ouse drainage schemes; and whether he will set up encampments for young unemployed men from the distressed areas to do work of national importance?

Mr. E. Brown: The main part of the work to which my hon. Friend refers was assisted by a grant from the Unemployment Grants Committee which ceased to exist on the expiry in August, 1932, of the Development (Loan Guarantee and Grants) Act, 1929, and there are no funds at my disposal which can be applied for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. De Chair: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will not be deterred from introducing similar camps for the unemployed merely because these were introduced by the Labour Government in 1929?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

ARMY CAMP, KINMEL, NORTH WALES (LABOUR).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Labour whether any Irish labour is now employed in the construction of an Army camp at Kinmel, North Wales; and, if so, will he state the number so employed?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.

BARNSLEY

Mr. Collindridge: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in Barnsley at the end of May, in the years 1937- 1938 and 1939?

Mr. E. Brown: The numbers of unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, on the registers of the Barnsley Employment Exchange and Juvenile Employment Bureau at 24th May, 1937, 16th May, 1938, and 15th May, 1939, were 13,380, 8,348, and 6,821 respectively.

Mr. Liddall: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of unemployed in the same town in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 respectively?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice.

NEW FACTORY, WORKINGTON.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: asked the Minister of Labour whether in agreeing to the erection of a new factory for the processing and manufacture of cloth at Moorside, Workington, he recognised that the manufactured products of this new mill would be in direct competition with mills already operating in the West Riding; that the financial assistance afforded to the new factory would operate harshly and unfairly against established mills; that this being a skilled industry the transference of skilled workers would become necessary; and whether he will, in consultation with the Commissioner for the Special Areas, review the proposal to establish this factory?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a similar question on this subject.

Mr. Beaumont: In view of the fact that it is entirely different from the previous question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman for a reply to the question on the Paper?

Mr. Brown: The best answer I can give is to refer the hon Member again, to the previous reply.

GLASGOW.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of registered unemployed in Glasgow for the years ended March, 1938 and 1939, respectively?

Mr. E. Brown: The average numbers of unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Glasgow during the years ended March, 1938, and March, 1939; were 77,356 and 78,535, respectively.

GLENBRANTER CAMP, ARGYLLSHIRE.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of trainees now at Glenbranter camp, Argyllshire, and how many are employed on road work?

Mr. E. Brown: There are 146 men in training at Glenbranter Instructional Centre, 96 of whom are at present engaged on road and quarry work which forms part of the course of training.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this question, because there is a feeling abroad that a very large percentage are employed on ordinary road work, to the detriment of those who desire greater technical training?

Mr. Brown: I hope the hon. Member will help to dispel that illusion, because it is an illusion.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons, including staff, at Glenbranter camp, Argyllshire; the number of dry and wet lavatories; and the number of qualified persons on the medical staff?

Mr. Brown: The total number of persons at Glenbranter Instructional Centre is 178. There are eight dry bucket latrines and five water closets. Four additional dry bucket latrines are at present in course of construction. A full-time qualified medical orderly is employed and in addition the services of a local doctor are available whenever required.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister not think that one medical orderly for 176 men is insufficient, especially when they are 16 miles from the nearest town; and are any steps being taken to instal wet lavatories in view of the various complaints that have been made?

SPECIAL AREAS

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Labour the total reduction in unemployment in the Special Areas since the com missioners were first appointed; and whether the latest figures show a down ward or upward trend?

Mr. E. Brown: The total reduction in the number of unemployed persons of 14 years and over on the registers in the Special Areas since November, 1934, when the commissioners were first appointed, is 186,430 or 42 per cent. The figures show a steady and continuous downward movement since January of this year.

Mr. J. Morgan: How many are transferred men who have gone out of the areas altogether?

Mr. Brown: Not a large number.

MILITARY CAMP, HARROGATE.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the men employed at the military camp at Harrogate were drawn from the registered unemployed at Normanton and Castleford?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICERS' COMPETENCY CERTIFICATES (DRAFT CONVENTION).

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether any conditions were attached by the Egyptian Government to the ratification of the Draft Convention on Officers' Competency Certificates?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTT INSULATED WIRE COMPANY, LIMITED (EMPLOYES).

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Scott Insulated Wire Company, Limited, of Queensland Works, Queensbury, London, N.W.9, dismissed 20 of their employés on 3rd May because they had joined a trade union on 28th April last; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that a firm engaged in direct or subsidiary Government contract work shall not continue in a policy of industrial victimisation?

Mr. E. Brown: I have been in communication with the employer and understand that the facts are as stated in the first part of the question though the men were given the option of withdrawing from the union. With regard to the last part of the question. I understand that this firm is not at present engaged directly or indirectly in Government contract work.

Mr. Windsor: Will the Minister make inquiries as to whether this firm is merely a subsidiary of the Vogel Wire Company, which is entirely German-controlled, and whether it is part of their policy to employ non-union labour and to be anti-Jewish?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member has any information, I shall be very glad to receive it from him.

Mr. Windsor: I will send it.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister say that it is contrary to Government policy for this victimisation to take place?

Mr. Brown: Most decidedly, Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY TRAINING.

CIVIL EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Sloan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state what action he intends to take regarding the intimation by Scottish Oils and Shell-Mex, Limited, to youths of 19 years of age that their services may be terminated, which is quite contrary to the undertakings given that the rights of these youths would be protected?

Mr. E. Brown: I understand that in the case of lorry-boys, who are normally engaged by this company at the age of 16, warning is given at the time of engagement that owing to the limited number of vacancies their continued employment after the age of 19 cannot be guaranteed. This has been the practice of the company for a number of years. It is evident that the matter has no relation to the Military Training Act.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is anything about the matter which indicates blind-alley employment, and are there no means of protecting these youth?

Mr. Brown: We are constantly making inquiries. As the hon. Member knows, the production of some businesses is such that the number of jobs for men is limited in comparison with the total, and, as in the case, the hon. Member will remember, raised in Birmingham with regard to the co-operative society, the giving of notice to boys of 16 is of great advantage.

Mr. Sloan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a general circular has been


sent out to all youths of 19 years of age that they may not be employed any longer?

Mr. Brown: I understand that the practice is as stated in the answer.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister take care that, in this general warning, they are not using their powers to dispense with the services of lads of 19 because of their being called up?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, Sir.

Sir Joseph Nall: May I ask my right hon. Friend, arising out of —

Mr. Speaker: The time that is being spent upon these questions is much too long.

Mr. Cove: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. R. J. Hall, of Welwyn Garden City, recently informed his employers, namely, G. Street; Company, adertising agents, of Serle Street, Lincoln's Inn, that he was liable to service under the Military Training Act, and that within one week of so informing his employers Mr. Hall was dismissed from their service; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances of this young man's dismissal?

Mr. Brown: I have no information about this particular case, but am making inquiry on the basis of a letter I have received from the hon. Member.

Mr. Cove: Is it not the duty of the Minister to make an inquiry about this case to see that young men are not victimised in this way?

Mr. Brown: I am making constant inquiries, and some of the inquiries show that the allegations which are made are not always substantiated.

Mr. Cove: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why an inquiry was not made by his Department into this particular case having regard to the fact that I gave notice of this question earlier in the week?

Mr. Brown: I had no information about this case, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for sending me a letter which gave me information I did not possess.

Mr. Cove: What action is the Minister now taking in regard to this case? The letters I have received show quite clearly

that this young man was dismissed because he was liable to be called up under the Military Training Act.

Mr. Brown: I shall do my best to find out whether the allegations in the letter which the hon. Member sent to me are substantiated.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers given in previous cases are interpreted as almost an encouragement to employers to do this kind of thing? Will he so conduct his inquiry as to make it plain to an employer that it is a grave social offence?

Mr. Brown: On the contrary, I do not think the hon. Member can have read the answers carefully. Perhaps he will remember the saying of Thomas Carlyle, that it takes two to tell the truth—one to speak and the other to use it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When questions are put down which obviously involve inquiry, is it not the duty of the Minister to make his inquiries during the time which elapses between putting the question down and the date when the reply is to be given?

Mr. Speaker: The inquiries sometimes take a long time.

UNIVERSITIES.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of his consultations with representatives of the universities and schools, he is now able to make a further statement with regard to the antedating of militia training in the case of boys who intend to proceed to the universities after October, 1939?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. At a meeting held under the auspices of my Department on Monday last between representatives of the committee of vice-chancellors and headmasters, together with representatives of the Departments concerned, it was agreed to recommend that boys intending to proceed to the universities were given the double option of postponing or anticipating their liability to undergo military training. I intend to put this agreed conclusion into operation, subject to reviewing the position in 12 months time in the light of experience, when I propose again to seek the advice and assistance of the representatives of the universities and the schools. It was further agreed at the conference that


anticipation of the liability to undergo training, in respect of such boys should not be granted to those under the age of;18 years on 1st January of the year in which they wish to take their training. With regard to this recommendation, I cannot do more at present than say that it will be borne, in mind when applications for anticipation are considered.

Mr. Mander: Was this agreement unanimous?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

Sir Richard Acland: What will happen to these university boys if, as is suggested, the system comes to an end in three year?

MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. Rallinson, of 17, Shadyside, Hex-thorpe, Doncaster, has been passed as fit for military service even though he wears a glass left eye; and will he state the regulations covering such a decision together with the number of other militiamen similarly affected who were either rejected or accepted by the various medical boards concerned?

Mr. E. Brown: The instructions to the medical boards provide that persons with one eye only may be placed in Grade II and marked "(a) vision," provided that that eye is free from disease and reaches a specified degree of visual acuity. Mr. Rallinson was examined and graded accordingly on 15th June. I regret that the figures asked for in the second part of the question are not available.

Mr. Morgan: Will the fact that this man is suffering from this disability, coupled with the fact that he is the principal support of a widowed mother undergoing medical treatment, be taken into consideration if the case comes before the hardship tribunal?

Mr. Brown: Most certainly.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how a glass eye can show a certain kind of disease?

Mr. Brown: No, it is the other eye.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: Can the right hop. Gentlemen say what are the duties of a soldier who is put in Grade 11?

Mr. Brown: They are similar to Grade I.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures with regard to the medical examination of militiamen?

Mr. Brown: The number of men medically examined up to 19th June was 49,586. Of these 41,297 or 83·3 per cent, of the total were placed in Grade I, and 4,553 or 9.2 per cent, in Grade II, but of this number more, than half were in that grade, only on account of defects of vision or feet The total number of men passed fit for the two grades now being called up for training is, therefore, 45,850 or 92.5 per cent. Of the remainder 2,443 men or 4.9 per cent, of the total were placed in Grade III which is the grade appropriate to men who would be fit for certain selected occupations in the Forces but are not at present to be called up for the Militia. The number unfit for any form of military service and placed in Grade IV was only 1,293 or 2.6 Per cent, of the total. I will circulate in the Official Report a table giving corresponding figures for each of the administrative divisions of the Ministry.

Mr. Lawson: Is it a fact that the standard has been lowered for these militiamen as compared with the Regular soldier?

Mr. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to an answer which was given to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). Perhaps I had better repeat it. The question was:
Whether the same standard of physical fitness was applied in the medical tests of the militiamen as is done for recruits for the Regular Forces?
The answer given was:
No, Sir; the medical examinations for the Regular Forces have in view the needs of particular units, whilst the examination of militiamen is of a more general character." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1930; col. 1817, Vol. 348.]

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Army Report on the conditions of health and examination shows no difference of that kind, and that we have always been led to believe; that there was a general standard? Is he aware that his statement has led people in all parts of the country to believe that


the standard has been lowered for militia men and that his answer has. given co lour to that statement?

Mr. Brown: That is not so. I am informed that the standards have been -changed in some respects in regard to the Regular Army in recent years. So far from the report showing what the hon. Member suggests, if he will refer to the Annual Reports for 1936 and 1937, the detail of these change will be found.

MILITARY TRAINING ACT, 1939.


Analysis of results of Medical Examinations during the period 8th June, 1939, to 19th June, 1939.


Grade.
Numbers medically examined.


London Divn.
S.E. Divn.
S.W. Divn.
Mids. Divn.
N.E. Divn.
N.W. Divn.
N. Divn.
Scot. Divn.
Wales Divn.
Totals Divn.


I
7,612
3,831
3.351
7,072
4.592
5.368
2,810
4.565
2,096
41,297


II
318
158
167
357
145
343
92
164
132
1,876


II (a) (Vision)
457
191
155
321
250
320
117
178
68
2,057


II (a) (Feet)
111
68
68
105
69
85
17
75
22
620


Total of II and II (a).
886
417
390
783
464
748
226
417
222
4,553


Total of I and II.
8,498
4,248
3,741
7.855
5,056
6,116
3,036
4,982
2,318
45,850


III
508
193
224
420
212
369
132
257
128
2,443


IV
230
115
145
200
109
200
88
137
69
1,293


Grand Totals
9,236
4,556
4,110
8,475
5,377
6,685
3,256
5,376
2,515
49,586

Grade.
Percentages of men medically examined.


London Divn.
S.E. Divn.
S.W. Divn.
Mids. Divn.
N.E. Divn.
N.W. Divn.
N. Divn.
Scot. Divn.
Wales Divn.
Overall per cent.


I
82·5
84·1
81·5
83·5
85·4
80·3
86·3
84·9
83·3
83·3


11
3·5
3·5
4·1
4·2
2·7
5·1
2·8
3·1
5·3
3·8


II (a) (Vision)
4·9
4·2
3·8
3·8
4·6
4·8
3·6
3·3
2·7
4·1


II (a) (Feet)
1·2
1·5
1·6
1·2
1·3
1·3
·5
1·4
9
1·3.


Total of II and II (a).
9·6
9·2
9·5
9·2
8·6
11·2
6·9
7·8
8·9
9·2


Total of I and II(a)
92·1
93·3
91·0
92·7
94·0
91·5
93·2
92·7
92·2
92·5


III
5·5
4·2
5·5
5·0
3·9
5·5
4·1
4·8
5·1
4·9


IV
2·4
2·5
3·5
2·3
2·1
3·0
2·7
2·5
2·7
2·6


Grand Totals
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Mr. Rhys Davies: Would a young man with one eye be accepted in the Regular Forces?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put that question down I will answer it.

Mr. Cartland: May I ask whether any steps have been taken to improve the health of those men who are put in category 4?

Following is the table

Mr. Ritson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a young man named Thomas Robinson was medically examined on 13th June, 1939, at Sunderland and passed fit for military service, and, as he has only the sight of one eye and the other eye is affected and he has been for some time under treatment by a specialist for his eyes, he will inquire into the circumstances under which this young man was passed fit for military service?

Mr. Brown: Mr. Thomas Robinson was examined by the medical board at Sunderland on 13th June and passed as Grade I. This is the correct grading in view of the board's report, which does not bear out the suggestion in the question as to the state of his eyesight. In view, however, of the hon. Member's statement I am arranging for the man to have a further opportunity of appearing before the board.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that "the Ayes have it" up to now?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour whether the medical examination of militiamen conformed to the same standard applied to recruits and conscripts during the Great War; if not, in what respect it differed; and whether fuller information could be made available respecting the nature and scope of the medical examination?

Mr. Brown: The medical examination of militiamen is conducted on a system differing from that applied during the last War and I am not, therefore, in a position to make a comparison between them. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Members for East Bradford (Mr. Hepworth) and North Islington (Dr. H. Guest) on 13th and 20th June, respectively.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the present medical examination is more or less severe than the one carried out during the last War?

Mr. Brown: It is much more detailed. Hon. Members who served last time will know that during the War the examination was conducted by one medical man as a rule. In this case, there are four medical men working under a chairman.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that the length of the examination is only four or five minutes, and in those circumstances, could there really have been a very thorough examination of the militiamen?

Mr. Brown: I suggest that I arrange for the hon. Member to attend at one of the medical boards and see for himself.

Sir R. Acland: To allay very genuine anxiety, would it be possible for the Minister to publish the instructions which he gave to the doctors carrying out the examination?

Mr. Brown: I will look into that, but I cannot agree that there is any widespread anxiety. There is, on the other hand, a general feeling that the boards are conducted in a most admirable way.

Mr. Stephen: How can the Minister say the boards are conducted in a most admirable way when a man with one eye has been passed in Grade II?

Mr. Brown: In pre-War days, I knew a Devonshire soldier with only one eye, who was an expert Bisley shot, and who came well within the first half-dozen. [Interruption.] Nelson had only one eye.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour how many militiamen with only one eye have been accepted for training and how many rejected; whether all militiamen were tested for colour-blindness and in what grade those affected have been placed; how many were found to be deaf and the number accepted and rejected, respectively, for training; whether militiamen have been, or will be, examined for defective teeth; and whether militiamen will be fitted with artificial dentures where necessary and without charge?

Mr. Brown: I regret that it is not practicable at the present stage to analyse the results of the medical examinations so as to furnish statistics of particular physical defects but I will consider what can be done when the examinations are complete. Militiamen with only one eye may, in certain circumstances, be placed in Grade II if the other eye is sound. Men with defects of hearing may be placed in Grades I-IV according to their condition. The men examined are not tested for colour-blindness. The examination includes a scrutiny of the teeth, and


militiamen reporting for training will be fitted with artificial dentures, where this is considered essential, and without charge.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that at a very early date after the examinations have been completed we shall have these detailed records in order that we may have a very good insight into the medical condition of an important section of the community and also in order that we may avoid the impression that prevails in some quarters that under any circumstances the men have got to be inside the Armed Forces.?

Mr. Brown: That impression is entirely false. I should have thought that every Member of the House and everybody outside would be proud of the fact that our social legislation within the last thirty years has given us these great results.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any figures available, or will secure them, respecting the health of militiamen drawn from the Special Areas and from districts of acute poverty; whether the medical officers examining militiamen sought for evidence of malnutrition; and, if so, the numbers and percentages so affected?

Mr. Brown: It will be possible to secure statistics showing the grading of men examined at any one of the 149 medical boards some of which will sit in the areas referred to. The boards are directed to seek for certain specified physical defects, and some of these may be due either to malnutrition or to other causes. The results of the examinations will not, therefore, yield direct evidence as to cases of malnutrition but the very low figures for Grade IV are evidence of the generally satisfactory condition of the age group concerned.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these questions have not been put down with the idea of making party capital but simply in order to get information on a very important subject; and is he also aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are, at least, as much concerned about these men as hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Brown: I understand that, and it is for that reason that I have given these detailed answers which are so satisfactory.

Mr. Poole: Can the Minister explain how it is possible for a man who failed to pass the medical examination for the Territorial Army, to be successful within four weeks in passing the medical examination for the Militia?

Mr. Brown: I should like to have the particulars of that case.

Mr. Poole: The Minister already has them.

HOLIDAYS.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the event of a holiday period to which a militiaman is entitled falling within his period of training, steps will be taken to ensure that such holiday is not lost to the man concerned?

Mr. E. Brown: I anticipate that any necessary adjustments in this respect will be made in holiday schemes and trade board determinations by the various industries and trade boards concerned.

Mr. Green: Can the Minister say whether he possesses any power to compel employers to do as I have suggested?

Mr. Brown: I should like that question to be put on the Paper.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour what was the result of the call-up of men in city of Liverpool under the Military Training Act; what number failed to report; and what number registered as conscientious objectors?

Mr. E. Brown: Approximately 6,329 men had registered at Liverpool up to 13th June and of these 46 were provisionally registered as conscientious objectors; I am not in a position to state how many men failed to register.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Collindridge: asked the Minister of Health whether, in assessing needs of applicants for public assistance, regard will be had by public assistance committees to allotments and payments coming into a household as a consequence of a man who has left such household for purposes of serving in the Militia?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): There is no statutory authority which would entitle public assistance authorities in assessing relief to disregard allotments


and dependants' allowances made by or in respect of persons serving in the Militia.

Mr. Collindridge: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this particularly vicious operation of a means test is not calculated to make those militiamen who are affected into good fighting units?

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister appreciate that if the allotments made by militiamen are taken into account it will be an inducement to militiamen not to make allotments?

Mr. Elliot: I have to operate the law as it stands, just as hon. Members opposite had to do when they sat here.

Mr. George Griffiths: Did not the Minister hear the reply of the Minister of War last week that the 3s. 6d. should not be taken into account and cannot he act in the same way?

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the cost-of-living index figure for the 12 months ended the last convenient date and the comparable figure for the previous 12 months?

Mr. E. Brown: For the 12 months ended 1st June, 1939, the official cost-of-living index figures averaged 55 per cent, above the level of July, 1914, compared with 57 per cent, for the 12 months ended 1st June, 1938.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do anything in regard to these cost-of-living index figures?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will notice there has been a drop.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the Minister consider laying the Ministry of Labour Gazette as a Parliamentary Paper so that there will be no longer any necessity for hon. Members to ask these questions?

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour what is the position with regard to the inquiry into the revision of the cost-of-living index figures?

Mr. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply which I gave on 9th February to a question on this subject by

the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). Substantial progress has since been made with the tabulation of the 50,000 budgets received but, having regard to the amount of work involved, the results of the inquiry will not be available for some time to come.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very definite statements in the Press during the week-end about the inquiry, and in view of the fact that the present cost-of-living index figures bear no relation to the increase in the cost-of-living in some localities, will he expedite the inquiry?

Mr. Brown: A special staff is now engaged on this work. As the House knows, it is the largest thing of its kind that has been done anywhere. The inquiry was concluded some months ago, but I would not expect to get the results in tabulated form for some time yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (NATIONAL SERVICE).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Labour what is the position of aliens between the ages of 20 and 21 years, permanently resident in this country, in view of the Military Training Act, 1939; whether it is intended to afford them an apportunity, although debarred from military service, of showing their loyalty to the country of their adoption by doing work of national importance in labour camps for six months; and whether he can give an estimate of the approximate number involved?

Mr. E. Brown: The Military Training Act applies only to British subjects. I have no authority to organise camps for aliens, nor can I give an estimate of the number of aliens aged 20 to 21 resident here.

Mr. Mander: Is the Minister aware that a number of these aliens are only too anxious to offer their services in the Armed Forces of this country, and cannot they be given the opportunity of doing so?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (MILITARY SERVICE).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made for carrying on the duties of those members of the Government of military


age who in the event of war will be serving with the Navy, Army, and Air Force?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No arrangements are at present being made to meet the eventuality to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister say how many Ministers are affected or actually serving at the present time; and whether all Ministers of military age have, in fact, offered their services?

The Prime Minister: I could not answer that without notice.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended in the event of war that the older members of His Majesty's Government should take the place of the junior Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I have not considered that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in order to resolve the controversy upon the penal use of flogging?

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to state when the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW DEPARTMENTS (MINISTERS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of causing an investigation to be made by means of a Select Committee of inquiry or otherwise into the practicability of reducing the number of salaried members of the Government, in view of the continued addition of new Departments?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 13th June last.

Mr. Mander: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to bear in mind the fact that during the Debate on this subject on Monday last, some anxiety was expressed among his own supporters on this question?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (SCHOOLS).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what resolutions he has received from education authorities expressing the view that the suggested payment of 50 per cent, of the cost of air-raid precautions work in connection with schools should be increased to the percentage grants allowed for other air-raid precautions work?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Eighteen local education authorities have submitted resolutions to the Board expressing the view to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Kirby: Does the Minister realise that he will have to do something in regard to air-raid precautions for children, and that on the present grants little progress is being made in this very important work?

Mr. Lindsay: This whole matter was dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in answer to several questions.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not 18 authorities, but the annual meeting of all the local educational authorities of this country last week unanimously passed a resolution in these terms; and will he give it his consideration?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes, I had noticed it.

Mr. Lipson: What action is the hon. Gentleman taking in regard to this resolution? Has he conveyed it td the Lord Privy Seal or has he done nothing at all?

Mr. Lindsay: The Lord Privy Seal and the President of the Board of Education are fully aware of the resolutions which have been sent.

Mr. Kirby: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the questions which have been put by several hon. Members, namely, whether the President of the Board of Education intends to give further consideration to this important matter?

Mr. Lindsay: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answers which the Lord Privy Seal gave.

Mr. Tomlinson: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of this reply, and the replies given to other questions on the same subject, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

EVACUATION.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make a statement on the information he has received as to the success or failure of the scheme for registration for the evacuation of children under five years of age; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the safe evacuation of the younger child population from districts outside the London area?

Mr. Elliot: I have received returns from a number of evacuation areas, which show that the initial response from mothers of children under five has so far, in many cases, been encouraging. The registers are in general still open. In London the returns have been lower than in some other towns, and I would appeal to mothers with young children to register. The Government evacuation scheme already applies to 11 areas immediately adjacent to the administrative county, and to 22 provincial areas. As indicated in the reply which I gave on 18th May to the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby), I am reviewing the possibility of extending the scheme to certain further areas.

Mr. Day: Is it not possible for the Minister to give us any detailed figures of the number of mothers who have registered their children?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, because, as I have said, the registers are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTH-RATE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the inevitable eventual results of a continuance of our existing birth-rate; and whether, in the light of the experiences of other countries, he will consider taking effective measures to deal with this problem?

Mr. Elliot: The potential effect of a continuance of the present birth-rate is well recognised. With regard to the second part of the question, further study of the subject will be necessary in the

light of the information now beginning to accrue under the Population (Statistics) Act, which was passed by this House as my hon. Friend is aware, in order to provide a basis of fact for the practical consideration of the problems involved.

Mr. Hannah: Is not a Royal Commission on this extremely important subject very necessary?

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be wiser to take steps to save the lives of the 57,000 children who die before they are five years old, than to have a Royal Commission to see why more children are not born?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has not the Noble Lady read the article in the "Times" showing that we are an A1 nation?

Viscountess Astor: Could I have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman? Is it not the case that this number of children die before five years of age?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BIRMINGHAM (RENTS).

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the rent strike of tenants of Birmingham council houses still continues and that the arrears of rent now exceed £20,000; and whether, in view of the Tenants' Association's willingness to submit the whole matter to independent arbitration, he will consider the desirability of arranging with the city council that an officer of his Department should meet both sides with a view to arriving at an amicable settlement?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the continuance of this dispute, but I do not think that I could usefully adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Poole: Will the Minister please reconsider that decision in view of the fact that a complete deadlock has now lasted for seven weeks and there is no sign of any settlement? The tenants are prepared to have the case arbitrated upon "and will he not, in the interests of the tenants themselves, and of the large body of ratepayers in the city who will have to carry this heavy burden, reconsider the position with a view to reaching a settlement?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, I think the matter is one between the local authority and the tenants of the local authority.

Mr. Cartland: Even if he will not arbitrate between the two sides, will not the Minister try to do something to bring the two sides together?

MANCHESTER (CLEARANCE ORDERS).

Sir J. Nall: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made in the housing redevelopment of clearance sites in the Hulme division of Manchester; and whether it is intended that proposed housing schemes should be completed on any part of these sites before further demolitions are authorised in the vicinity?

Mr. Elliot: I have recently approved the erection by the Manchester Corporation of 240 flats on land purchased by them in the Hulme clearance area and I have before me clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders in respect of the St. George's clearance area in the Hulme Division. I understand that the corporation contemplate that action in the two areas shall be concurrent, the Hulme flats providing accommodation for some of the persons to be displaced from the St. George's area, the others being eventually housed in 576 flats to be erected on sites in and adjoining the St. George's area.

Sir J. Nall: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he appreciates that it was announced locally that these flats would be proceeded with before slum clearance began, and has any confirmation of that been made by the corporation to his Department?

Mr. Elliot: I should have to make inquiries into that point.

Mr. Fleming: Is the Minister aware that in cases where sites have been cleared in Manchester and no provision for rehousing has been made neighbouring houses have become overcrowded through the occupants taking lodgers.

Mr. Elliot: It is obviously desirable that the rehousing should be dealt with as quickly as possible.

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTION.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales have made application for the Exchequer contribution of £6 10s. per annum for 40 years available

in special cases for the provision of working-class houses under Section 1 (3) and (4) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938; what is the total number of houses involved in the applications; and how the applications have been disposed of by him?

Mr. Elliot: Applications for the Exchequer contribution referred to have so far been received from 28 local authorities. The number of houses concerned has not been stated in all cases, but specific applications have been received in respect of about 700 houses. Seven of the applications have been rejected as they did not satisfy the conditions laid down. The remainder are still under active consideration by my Department, and I hope to be able to inform the local authorities of my decisions at an early date.

Mr. Adams: Will this information be made public?

Mr. Elliot: It will be made public, but it could not be given in answer to a question in this House.

WATER SUPPLY, HUCKNALL.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state the circumstances regarding the precautions taken on 5th and 6th June to ensure the purity of the water supply of Hucknall, Nottinghamshire; whether the cause of the presence of bacillus coli has been ascertained, and whether this bacillus is dangerous; and is he satisfied that this water supply is now free from any danger to health?

Mr. Elliot: Contamination of the water supply was disclosed by a routine analysis made on behalf of the local authority. The supply was immediately chlorinated. Investigation by the local authority of the cause of the presence of bacillus coli is proceeding with the assistance of a consulting engineer. The presence of bacillus coli, though not in itself dangerous, is an indication of possible contamination by sewage which may contain organisms of disease. Analyses made subsequent to chlorination indicate that the water is now free from danger to health.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not the fact that the local officials acted with great promptitude and efficiency in this matter?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. I think it may be said that the clearing up of the water supply has been quickly done.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING AND VALUATION (POSTPONEMENT).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to implement the assurance given with regard to the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Act, on 18th March, 1938; that local authorities would observe the spirit of that legislation to the full and that no wholesale revaluation should be undertaken, apart from individual amendments where an assessment was not in conformity with the general level of assessments in the area; and is he aware that certain local authorities are proceeding to revalue whole classes of property in contravention of this assurance?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Waterloo Division (Captain Bullock) on 25th May.

Sir W. Smithers: If I bring specific cases to the notice of the Minister will he promise to take action?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, but I promise to examine them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made towards securing a smokeless atmosphere, particularly in connection with new housing blocks, municipal housing schemes, and private building estates?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member will appreciate that a quantitative assessment of the progress made is impracticable, but research, propaganda and the cooperation of local authorities and other organisations are continually being directed to secure the hon. Member's object. As regards the latter part of the question, smokeless methods of cooking and heating are being adopted to an increasing extent in new houses provided, whether by local authorities or private enterprise.

Mr. Adams: As this is a matter of supreme importance at the present time

would it not be desirable for the Ministry of Health to schedule cases of the kind mentioned?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member asks what progress is being made, and I think it will be undesirable to go into that question in detail at Question Time.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Will the Minister consider the importance of extending the gas grid?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a pottery factory in Staffordshire has been converted to electric power, whereby smoke has been entirely eliminated; and what steps he is taking to induce, other industrialists in the Potteries and elsewhere to follow this example in the interests of cleanliness and smoke abatement?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that electricity has been used for some time with great success in certain trades in the Potteries. My chief alkali inspector, in recent annual reports, has urged the extension of the practice, and has stressed the advantages of electricity and gas where available on economic terms, particularly in types of industry that are normally productive of heavy smoke. I have no doubt that smoke prevention authorities and industrial organisations in this and other industrial areas of the country are aware of the possibilities of the cleaner methods, the use of which I greatly welcome.

Mr. Adams: Would the Minister, in the public interest, consider whether a circular might be sent out to industrialists calling their attention to these reforms?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend consider bringing in a Measure to compel all towns with over a certain number of inhabitants to burn nothing but smokeless fuel?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the working of the appeals tribunals for widows' and orphans and old age pensions, seeing that the tribunals have refused 91,921 applications for pensions during the last 10 years?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that I cannot agree that the fact that in 91,921 cases in the last 10 years the referees have found that the departmental decision appealed against was in accordance with the law affords any ground for the appointment of a committee for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member. In a very large number of cases the appellants can only be supposed to have appealed because of their failure to appreciate the exact requirements of the relevant statutory provisions.

Mr. Batey: As there is a feeling that widows' and old age pensioners have such a difficulty in getting a favourable decision from the tribunal, would it not be advisable to have an inquiry into the working of the tribunal?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. I think the fact that the figures show how few cases succeed upon appeal is an indication of how thoroughly the work is done in the first instance.

Commander Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that decision, and, further, direct such an inquiry to go into the causes which lead to the continued delay in awarding old age pensions when the applications have been allowed?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot agree that there is continued delay in awarding old age pensions, and I do not think that there is a case for the appointment of such a committee as has been suggested.

Commander Marsden: If I give my right hon. Friend details of a case, will he inquire into it and see that the procedure is speeded up?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly, if my hon. and gallant Friend gives me details of any case I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Mr. Paling: If it is the case, as brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) last week, that 91,000 appeals failed, is it not time that something was done to alter the position?

Mr. Elliot: The appeal was in strict accordance with the law. One hon. Member is suggesting an alteration of the Statute and the hon. Member himself is suggesting an alteration in the procedure, and the two are quite different.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Minister of Health the number of pensions at 65 years

of age and widows' pensions, respectively, which have been refused to applicants owing to the restriction imposed by Section 6 (3) of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, during the last two years?

Mr. Elliot: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available. I would, however, point out that the restriction to which he refers is considerably modified by regulations made under the provisions now incorporated in Section 32 of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1936. Under these regulations, contributions in respect of insurable employment paid after the date on which title to pension arises are, to the extent laid down in the regulations, regarded as having been paid at the proper time.

Mr. Anderson: Does not the Minister say that cases have been before his own Department, and is he not able to give particulars of the number of cases during the last 12 months or two years? Surely it is possible to give the cases which have been under the notice of his Department?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, not without making special inquiries.

Mr. Anderson: May I ask that information should be obtained, in view of the importance of the matter for which we require the figures?

Mr. Elliot: I will give that point my consideration, but the Departments are all working under very great strain at present.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a figure was put upon this position in respect of Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Surely he will not fall behind Scotland.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Health why, in the case of the wife of a man who reaches 65 years of age and whose husband is in receipt of an old age pension, and who produce's her birth certificate and her marriage certificate, she is refused an old age pension when the Ministry cannot prove that her marriage 39 years ago was illegal?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made on 15th June to a question asked by him regarding this case. As I then stated, this lady's claim to an old age pension was rejected because she was not shown to have been the legal wife of the man on. whose insurance her claim was based,


nor had she herself the necessary insurance qualifications. The referees have confirmed that this decision was in accordance with the law, and neither I nor the referees have power to award a pension where the conditions laid down in the Statute are not shown to be satisfied.

Mr. Batey: In view of the fact that this woman was married to her husband 39 years ago, may I ask whether the Minister has any proof that the marriage was illegal? He should either prove that the marriage was illegal or pay her the pension.

Mr. Elliot: That question has been placed before the competent authorities, who have decided against the view put forward by the hon. Member.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister arrange for a case to be taken to the High Court?

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask the Minister to do two things: first, in view of the fact that the criminal authorities have decided that there is no case for prosecution, and therefore no case that the woman is not legally married, have the case considered by the referees on these facts; and, secondly, ask the referees to consider granting the woman the right to appeal to the King's Bench Division?

Mr. Elliot: The question of law has been considered by the competent authority laid down by the Statute, and the matter is now disposed of. Therefore I do not think I can adopt either of the courses suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Batey: The Minister says that the question has been settled by the proper authority. Will he tell us how many persons were present in the court, and whether it was not decided by one gentleman? Had the woman any chance of attending?

Mr. Elliot: I could not go into those details now. The hon. Member himself said some time ago that he would be raising the case on the Adjournment, when obviously we shall have more time.

Mr. Batey: Yes, but the Prime Minister prevents me from doing so by moving the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATE REASSESSMENTS, CORNWALL.

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he has received repre

sentations from the Torpoint Ratepayers' Associaton and others concerning the heavy burden which is arising through wholesale reassessments in Cornwall; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: I have received a number of representations in this matter, but it is not one in which I have power to intervene.

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend consider an amendment of the law under which all such reassessments would come into court at the same time?

Mr. Elliot: I must point out to my hon. Friend that questions regarding fresh legislation should be addressed to the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Rathbone: Are any amendments of the law being considered in my right hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. These matters were decided some time ago, and I am not at present considering any amendment of the law.

Mr. Rathbone: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend considers the present state of the law to be entirety satisfactory?

Mr. Petherick: Is it not the case that the original motive of a Bill comes from the Department, and not from the Patronage Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Viscountess Astor: asked the Minister of Health the number of parishes in each county which have a piped water-supply, and the number without such a piped supply?

Mr. Elliot: I will, with permission, circulate the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Viscountess Astor: If there are many of these villages without running water, would not the Government consider taking £1,000,000 off the Wheat Subsidy for the purpose of supplying them? That would still leave it at £9,000,000.

Mr. De la B ère: Does not my right hon. Friend recall what I said last week, that the whole position is thoroughly unsatisfactory, including my Noble Friend's suggestion?

Following is the statement:

County.
Number of parishes in the county.
Number of parishes in the county with a "piped" water supply (including those in which the provision of a piped supply has been commenced).
Number of parishes in the county without a "piped" water supply.


Bedford
…
…
116
109
7


Berks.
…
…
176
147
29


Bucks.
…
…
201
193
8


Cambridge
…
…
127
82
45


Cheshire
…
…
318
310
8


Cornwall
…
…
175
87
88


Cumberland
…
…
145
142
3


Derby
…
…
256
191
65


Devon
…
…
404
189
215


Dorset
…
…
257
180
77


Durham
…
…
168
148
20


Essex
…
…
290
242
48


Gloucester
…
…
297
236
61


Hereford
…
…
244
111
133


Herts.
…
…
116
111
5


Huntingdon
…
…
80
48
32


Isle of Ely
…
…
27
24
3


Isle of Wight
…
…
15
15
Nil


Kent
…
…
297
286
11


Lancs.
…
…
236
227
9


Leicester
…
…
216
110
106


Lincs. (Holland)
…
…
43
43
Nil


Lincs. (Kesteven
…
…
154
119
35


Lincs. (Lindsey)
…
…
408
199
209


Norfolk
…
…
523
133
390


Northampton
…
…
256
155
101


North Cumberland
…
…
449
305
144


Nottingham
…
…
229
176
53


Oxford
…
…
233
130
103


Peterboro
…
…
24
22
2


Rutland
…
…
57
23
34


Salop
…
…
226
127
99


Somerset
…
…
395
361
34


Southampton
…
…
238
150
88


Stafford
…
…
173
149
24


Suffolk East
…
…
306
113
193


Suffolk West
…
…
167
61
106


Surrey
…
…
67
67
Nil


Sussex East
…
…
128
97
31


Sussex West
…
…
128
112
16


Warwick
…
…
232
133
99


Westmorland
…
…
100
74
26


Wiltshire
…
…
264
170
94


Worcester
…
…
181
84
97


Yorks (East Riding)
…
196
187
9


Yorks North Riding)
…
505
374
131


Yorks (West Riding)
…
451
381
70


Totals
…
10,294
7,133
3,161


Wales.


Anglesey
…
…
55
21
34


Brecon
…
…
81
66
15


Cardigan
…
…
72
56
16


Caernarvon
…
…
40
33
7


Carmarthen
…
…
63
46
17


Denbigh
…
…
72
66
6


Flint
…
…
41
34
7


Glamorgan
…
…
115
104
11


Merioneth
…
…
34
29
5


Monouth
…
…
59
45
14


Montgomery
…
…
51
28
23


Pembroke
…
…
150
76
74


Radnor
…
…
59
17
42


Totals
…
892
621
271

Oral Answers to Questions — TIENTSIN (SITUATION).

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice):asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further information to give to the House regarding the situation in the Far East?

The Prime Minister: The barrier restrictions at Tientsin remain unchanged. Certain British subjects who passed the barriers report long delays and strict search. Sufficient quantities of fresh food for daily consumption are entering the Concessions after much delay. About this time women and children generally leave Tientsin for seaside resorts to escape the hot weather. Arrangements are being made to expedite their departure, and the first party is reported to have already left.
His Majesty's ship "Sandwich" arrived at Tientsin on 20th June, and His Majesty's ship "Lowestoft," which was being relieved, will remain there for the present.
In South China, Japanese naval and military forces landed in the vicinity of Swatow at dawn on 21st June. Arrangements are being made for the evacuation of British women and children from Swatow, and the necessary merchant ships are being diverted to that port. The Japanese naval authorities have promised to facilitate the evacuation and to respect British property. His Majesty's ship "Thanet" is now at Swatow, and His Majesty's ship "Scout" was due to arrive there at daylight this morning.
The food situation at Kulangsu has deteriorated, in that supplies from Amoy and the mainland have been cut off. There is, however, at present no difficulty in getting foodstuffs in by ships of third Powers.

Mr. Greenwood: In view of what are now becoming repeated acts of aggression, though they may not be directed immediately against this country, is the right hon. Gentleman considering taking rather stronger action to express the displeasure that His Majesty's Government feel against the Japanese Government tolerating these acts of aggression?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that His Majesty's Government view with very grave concern the acts to which he has referred. In the case of Tientsin, where the situation is most acute, we are, of

course, still hoping that it may be possible by negotiation to settle the local issues, but, if these negotiations should fail, we are considering what further steps we should take.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Arising out of the Prime Minister's first reply, may I ask whether he is aware that reports have been current in Japan that the British Ambassador appeared two or three days ago before the Foreign Secretary of Japan to sue for mercy; and will he make it perfectly clear that there is not one word of truth in that preposterous suggestion?

The Prime Minister: Of course, on the face of it, such a suggestion will at once be seen to be preposterous. Nothing of the kind has ever occurred.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With regard to the local incidents at Tientsin, is it not becoming increasingly clear that this is a general aggressive attack on all foreign rights in China; and will the Prime Minister bear in mind that this may be a new attempt at world domination in the Far East?

The Prime Minister: I hope that that will not prove to be the case. If it were, it would be very serious.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not that the result of your Munich policy?

Mr. Mander: How many British subjects have to be insulted, stripped and killed before the British Government will do anything effective?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether he can say anything about the arrangements for the short Adjournment of the House to-day, and, secondly, whether he will state the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, will be making a statement about the Adjournment this afternoon. The business for next week will be:

Monday. —Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolution for the Armaments Profits Duty.

Tuesday. —Finance Bill; Committee; Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution for the Armaments Profits Duty.

Wednesday and Thursday. —Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Friday. —Supply; Committee [9th Allotted Day—2nd part], Ministry of Labour and Unemployment Assistance Board.

On any day, if time permits, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. Davidson: In regard to business, could the Prime Minister indicate whether an opportunity will be given to discuss the Government's neglect to deal with old age pensions?

MINING SUBSIDENCE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.[No. 137.]

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Newquay and District Water Bill.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EASTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Access to Mountains Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply

of the Folkestone Waterworks Company; to authorise the Company to construct new works and to acquire lands; to confirm the construction of certain existing works; to consolidate with amendments the provisions of the Folkestone Water Acts and Order 1848 to 1930 relating to the capital and borrowing powers of the Company; to authorise the Company to raise additional money; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes."[Folkestone Water Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the London County Council to execute street works and acquire lands in the City of Westminster; and for other purposes." [London County Council (Improvements) Bill [Lords.]

FOLKESTONE WATER BILL [LORDS], LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [LORDS],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Captain Arthur Evans and Lieut.-Colonel Mayhew; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Ernest Shepperson and Sir Robert Smith.

Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.

The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely:

Lipton Trust (Substituted Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

HIS MAJESTY'S RETURN FROM CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the wish of the House, the Chairman will suspend the sittings of the Committee this afternoon at 5.15 in order to enable Members to take part in the welcome to Their Majesties on their return from Canada, the United States and Newfoundland. The pavement outside New Palace Yard and that across the road opposite will be reserved for the use of Members of Parliament. The Chairman will resume the Chair at 6 p.m.

3.53 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain):I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty assuring His Majesty, on the occasion of His return from Canada, Newfoundland and the United States of America, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty and Her Majesty the Queen.
Seven weeks ago, it was my privilege to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty on the eve of his departure for Canada with Her Majesty the Queen, assuring him of the affection and deep interest with which this House would follow their progress during their journey. At that time all of us anticipated that this memorable visit would be accompanied by scenes of the greatest enthusiasm. I think it is no exaggeration to say that the demonstrations of loyalty and affection by the crowds which flocked together to welcome Their Majesties at every point of their journey have exceeded the utmost expectations. Thanks to the Press and the radio and the news reels, we have been able to follow every detail of Their Majesties' progress almost as if we had been present ourselves. We have been able to see with our own eyes how in Canada, and in Newfoundland later on, the visit has demonstrated in a most impressive manner not only the significance of the Crown in the British Commonwealth of Nations, but how loyalty to the Crown in the abstract has been translated into a personal feeling of affection for Their Majesties, a feeling which has been generated by seeing the simple, kindly and human qualities which we know are characteristic of our King and Queen.

When Their Majesties crossed the frontier of the United States, that magnificent welcome they received from the President and the American people outdistanced all precedents, and must have delighted Their Majesties' hearts. I am certain that it afforded profound gratification to Their Majesties' subjects throughout the Empire, and I can speak for the people of this country when I say that we have all been profoundly moved by the warmth of this greeting, which we acclaim both as a personal tribute to the King and Queen, and also as a striking proof of the sympathy and friendship which animate the feelings of the peoples of the United States and the United Kingdom. You have told us, Sir, that there will be an adjournment this afternoon, when hon. Members will have an opportunity—of which I know they will desire to take full advantage—of expressing their own personal feelings of loyalty to Their Majesties when they pass this House. I hope we shall not forget to express our appreciation of the exertions of all those who, throughout this long journey, covering so many thousands of miles on sea and on land, have given ceaseless care to the wellbeing and safety of Their Majesties.

3.57 P.m

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Mr. Arthur Greenwood: 1 rise to associate myself with the Motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister and, in such words as I can command, to say, "Welcome home!" to cur Sovereign from his historic mission overseas. In the past, monarchs and royal princes have left these shores for visits abroad, but this visit of the King and Queen across the Atlantic is, I believe, unique in the annals of this country. The visit to Canada has proved to the world that this Dominion, with problems of its own, with an historical background of its own, with internal questions of its own, is a loyal and devoted member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. If there be some who believe that this far-flung Empire, with the King as its symbolic head, is a myth, the visit of Their Majesties must have dispelled that view. Should it be that His Majesty contemplates further visits to others of his Dominions, that view will be corroborated. If I may say so, in passing, if it should be that the United States President may break an old tradition and visit this country or one of His Majesty's Dominions, he would


receive an equally warm welcome. This side of the matter really needs no emphasis, because I think we all feel that the sister nations of the Commonwealth, through their own loyalty to the Crown, express their common loyalty to one another.

The visit which Their Majesties paid to the United States opens, I believe, a new chapter in the relations between this country and the American Republic. It proves that blood is thicker than water. But it proves even more the brotherhood of peoples who live under the flag of freedom and democracy. The enthusiastic welcome of the United States, to which the Prime Minister has referred, was, I believe, the outpouring of the pent-up feelings of a great people desiring to make known their fundamental unity of purpose with Britain and her sister nations. There is for the world as a whole profound significance in the reception which the King and Queen received. It was, as the Prime Minister has said, a tribute to the personal charm and the friendliness of Their Majesties, but it also expressed the real kinship of the English-speaking peoples, and although one is a Republic and the other a Constitutional Monarchy, it proved that there is a real understanding, that they are facing common problems, sharing common ideals, desiring what all men and women of good will desire—the maintenance of peace and of freedom, and the establishment of enduring prosperity in the world. I feel that no words of mine are adequate to express what I believe to be the real significance of this visit. It may have—may it be so—more far-reaching results in maintaining peace and friendliness in the world, than we know. For that we greet them back home amongst us.

4.2 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Sir Archibald Sinclair: I rise on behalf of my hon. Friends to support the Motion. This afternoon the people of London will joyfully seize the opportunity of welcoming Their Majesties back to their family and home, and it is only fitting that we, who have the honour to represent in this House so many people who cannot share that opportunity, should express on their behalf as well as on our own our loyal and affectionate welcome. In Canada Their Majesties' grace and dignity in the pageantry of formal ceremonies, and still more their natural friendliness in meeting the men and women, and the children too,

of that great Dominion, have invested the Crown, as the vital link between the peoples of the British Commonwealth, with fresh human and simple meaning. In the United States they were the good neighbours of the people of the United States paying a visit, and we have all been deeply moved by the striking demonstrations of friendship and understanding with which they were greeted—a friendship which is none the less real because it is not exclusive, but is one in which every peace-loving nation may share. So we welcome home our King and Queen with pride in their achievements and with gratitude for the service which they have rendered both to their faithful subjects and to the cause of peace and understanding between the peoples of the world.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty assuring His Majesty, on the occasion of His return from Canada, Newfoundland, and the United States of America, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty and Her Majesty the Queen.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household,

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

CLAUSE 1. — (Increased duties and drawbacks on tobacco.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I wish to see this Clause deleted from the Bill and to initiate a discussion on the points raised by this increased Tobacco Duty. I have been looking into some of the history of the Tobacco Duty. There was a little discussion of it by the Colwyn Committee, which published some interesting statistics, and I wish to bring these statistics up to date. I find that the average consumption of tobacco in the ordinary family to-day is about six ounces a week, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed an extra duty which
amounts to 1½d. an ounce, so that the average burden of this duty upon the ordinary family is about 9d. a week. I mention that figure, because the Committee will see that although at first sight it seems rather a small impost, in fact it is a fairly substantial sum for a family of moderate means. I followed the argument of the Chancellor in the Budget Resolutions Debate. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that if you take this tax in isolation it cannot be justified according to the ordinary canons of taxation. In fact, as the Colwyn Committee pointed out as a result of their investigations, broadly speaking it may be said that an ordinary labourer smokes just about as much tobacco in a week as a man who is paying Surtax, and since the duty is not an ad valorem duty, the labourer pays about the same amount for this particular luxury as the man who is more fortunately circumstanced. That means that, if you take a labourer earning £2 a week and a Surtax-payer earning £2,000 a year, the labourer, with this duty, is paying about 20 times the proportion of his income that the Surtax-payer is paying. That, of course, is indefensible according to any accepted canon of taxation.
There was a good deal of discussion in the Budget Resolution Debate on a proposal to impose an ad valorem duty on tobacco instead of a duty on quality, and I myself fully realise that so far as the greater range of the tax is concerned an ad valorem tax would be almost impossible to administer. An ad valorem tax means that you have to estimate the value of the article when it comes into port. It is really very difficult indeed with a material like raw tobacco leaf, and that is the reason why the ad valorem tax has not been imposed. But I find that there was an ad valorem tax imposed some years ago upon cigars, and that it was repealed in 1921. The imposition of that tax was easier, because cigars are a manufactured article whose value can be estimated at the port. I think it would be worth the while of the Chancellor to look into the history of that episode, because as far as I have been able to trace it the reason why the tax on cigars was altered in 1921 was not that the ad valorem system was found to be impracticable, but because the tax was in fact too high. It was one of those cases in which the tax

was so high and the consumption was reduced to such an extent that the total yield of the tax fell. Though that was the case then it was no condemnation of the ad valorem system as applied to cigars, and it would be worth while to consider whether the system cannot be adopted again for that particular part of our tobacco consumption.
There has come into my possession some correspondence about the subject which was debated on the Budget Resolutions. I am speaking particularly of the tax on cigars. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this year has increased the Tobacco Duty by 2s., and as he has increased the duty upon imported cigars by 2s. the duty on imported cigars is somewhere near double the duty upon manufactured tobacco. But hitherto it has always been the practice that when the duty on manufactured tobacco was increased, the duty on imported cigars should be increased in proportion. That being so, the duty on imported cigars should be increased, not by 2s. but by 3s. 9d. I would like the "Chancellor to look into that subject again, because according to the information I have received since the result of his decision, the increased duty is likely to have a far more widespread effect on employment in this country than he gave us to believe at that time. Particularly I ask him to take into account the fact that the duty on tobacco manufactured in this country is at a great disadvantage as against the cigars imported into this country, The tobacco manufactured in this country, the final product, contains only 14 ounces of tobacco, but the imported cigar contains a full 16 ounces; I am told that in the process of manufacture of tobacco a couple of ounces on which duty has been paid becomes a waste product".
I now come to the Chancellor's argument in the last Debate. His argument was that it was really beside the point to discuss this duty by itself, that it was one of a series of taxes, and that we had to consider the general incidence of taxation as a whole, and that in doing that he could not consent to a proposal which would vary the incidence as between the workers and the wealthier classes, while the Surtax and other taxes have been increased. I will give the right hon. Gentleman our reply, the first part of which is that again you come back to what is


happening to-day. A man who is earning £2 a week pays about the same proportion of his total income in taxation as does a man earning about £1,000 a year, and therefore he is overtaxed. This adjustment might well be made, and still leave the equities of the whole system untouched.
Then there is another answer which applies particularly to this Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer feels that the poorer section of the community must pay its portion, but, as a matter of fact, in this Budget he is making them pay in a manner in which they have not been called upon to pay in most previous Budgets. The right hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that he is borrowing about £400,000,000, and instead of balancing the Budget he is merely increasing the National Debt and making the poorer classes pay by that method. The two great rivals for the expenditure of the State are the social services and the interest upon the National Debt, and the more you spend upon one, broadly speaking, the less you can spend upon the other. By the method of taxation adopted this year the right hon. Gentleman increases the National Debt and the interest which will have to be paid upon it in future, and is, therefore, curtailing the possibilities of advancement in the social services. The poorer classes are paying in that way by the very nature of this Budget. If the right hon. Gentleman imposes this tax upon them they will be paying twice over. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the poorer classes wish to take their share, out of some feeling of pride in bearing their portion of the burden, I must really say that his argument descended to bathos.
We can argue a good deal on the Floor of the House about the incidence of taxation and the relative proportion which different classes should pay, but in the final resort our opinion is confirmed because they are influenced by considerations rather wider than any which you can reach by such discussions. We are influenced by the fact, now recognised, that tobacco, tea and sugar are conventional necessaries and that if you increase the taxation on them you cause the consumption of other articles to diminish. The consumption of other and even more fundamental necessities has to cut down. That is the conclusion

which various committees have reached after the most careful estimates. We are very greatly impressed by the conclusions which have been come to by the British Medical Association and by that school of scientists which now calls itself nutritionist. They have clearly shown that from one-third to one-half of the children of this country do not receive the sheer necessities for physical growth and that they enter life with jerry-built bodies. This tax, as far as it goes, diminishes the amount of income available to bring children into manhood in full health and strength and for that reason, in opposing this taxation, we are defending the people's standard of life.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I desire to add a word or two to the case that has been put forward by my right hon. Friend who dealt at the beginning of his remarks with cigars. I do not intend to say very much about cigars, because, in the main, the people who can afford to buy cigars can afford to pay the tax upon them. I remember that Kipling has a line to this effect:
There is peace in a Laranaga,
There is calm in a Henry Clay.
Too much taxation may disturb that peace and decrease that calm. I am much more concerned, as was my right hon. Friend, with the ordinary poor people of the country to whom this additional taxation will be something in the nature of a burden. At the present time, thousands of millions of ounces of tobacco are sold in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer follows every one of them, and collects from the purchaser and consumer 8⅝d. That scale of taxation seems entirely out of proportion. That an ordinary working man can buy 20 cigarettes for 1s. and pay twice as much in duty as he pays for the cigarettes seems to be a reversal of the normal and reasonable taxation principle.
I desire gently to chide the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his unchivalrous conduct in taxing My Lady Nicotine and preventing her, as a ministering angel, conferring pleasure upon mankind. My right hon. Friend spoke about the burden on the working classes being 9d. a week. In many homes that sum might be an understatement. It might easily be more than that. To collect an additional £8,000,000 from tobacco consumers of the country seems to be entirely out of proportion. I know some of the problems


that arise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he gives way on this he will have to find some other source from which to obtain the £8,ooo,ooo. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purposes of this discussion would like to be the taxation authority in the United States of America where, I understand, the consumption of tobacco is twice as great as it is in this country. The consumption of tobacco is spreading fairly rapidly, and by that means the yield is becoming greater year by year without increasing the duty. I believe that in this country in 1927 the consumption was 3 lb. per head and that in 1936, which is the latest year for which I can find the figure, it had risen to 3¾ lbs. per head. Now that the gentler sex are indulging in smoking the present duty will bring a still further increased revenue to the Chancellor. An increase in the rate of duty will indeed put a burden upon the poor, upon the man who smokes Woodbines and Gold Flake and the ordinary cheaper brands of tobacco.

Mr. Charles Brown: Woodbines are not tobacco.

Mr. Watkins: Whether they are tobacco or not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put his duty upon them. I am concerned about the people with low wages from which they cannot very well afford to bear any additional burden.

4.26 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: We have all received communications with regard to the various taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting on, and I have been wondering where, if he paid attention to all those demands, the Chancellor would ge: Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: We have all received communications with regard to the various taxes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting on, and I have been wondering where, if he paid attention to all those demands, the Chancellor would get the money which he requires.

Mr. MacLaren: From land values.

Sir W. Allen: It would be very difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give all the rebates that are asked for. In what condition would the Treasury be? Those who send us various communications do not give us any idea of the other sources from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might get his money. I should be very glad if they would. At the same time we all feel very much that the poor man is so taxed that he ought to be allowed to have his
pipe of tobacco. That is a little luxury which the poor man enjoys, one of the very few that he can enjoy. I have often wondered whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or those responsible for looking into these questions have ever examined the possibility of separating luxury smoking from the poor man's pipe of tobacco. I have not very much sympathy with the man who indulges in the luxury of a good cigar.

Viscountess Astor: Why not?

Sir W. Allen: Because the individual who purchases that cigar and who is able to purchase it is also quite able to pay the tax.

Viscountess Astor: Not always.

Sir W. Allen: Then he should not smoke it. The man who indulges in his pipe of tobacco thoroughly enjoys doing it. The Chancellor should separate in some way or other that type of tobacco from the luxury tobacco. I suppose he cannot do it now, but perhaps he might look into that. I sincerely hope that something will be done to relieve the man who smokes his evening pipe of tobacco in his little house.

4.30 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I have no great sympathy with anybody who is comforted by a pipe, and certainly I have never found that comfort myself. A lot of nonsense is talked about smoking. I think it is almost one of the crimes of the age, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly right to tax it. I do not think people realise what a menace smoking is to this generation. Young people, men and women, hardly ever have a cigarette out of their mouth, and I think it is good for the nation that smoking should be taxed. In fact, I think it should be, if not entirely prohibited, at least limited.

Mr. Bracken: Is not this strange language from a daughter of Virginia?

Viscountess Astor: When I was in Virginia a woman hardly ever smoked a cigarette, and I remember the Bishop of Virginia coming on a visit to England 30 years ago and saying he would rather see his daughter drunk than smoking a cigarette. But, all mirth aside, I think that anybody who asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off the duty on


tobacco is asking him to do something which would be bad for the State, and I am glad he is keeping it on. We are asked by some hon. Members to suggest another tax, and I can suggest something to the Government. Let them tax betting pools. Everybody knows that that is one of the scandals of the age. Every Member of the House of Commons knows about the money that is spent in that way. I have only just come back from a devastated area, a town with a high rate of unemployment, and yet money is being spent there upon betting pools. I have never in my life been very much interested in the very rich. They can look after themselves; make no mistake about that. I am talking from the point of view of the great mass of the people of the country, and those particularly who have to count everything from the woman's point of view, and I say that these betting pools are one of the greatest scandals, and why on earth the Chancellor has not had the courage to tackle them, I do not know.

The Chairman: I am sure the hon. Lady will thank me for warning her that she is going a little far a field.

Viscountess Astor: I thank you very much, Sir Dennis, and I think the Chancellor knows by now what I mean. I have had many appeals from my constituents to vote against this or that, but on the whole I think there has never been a fairer or a more moderate Budget than this one. I should not have the heart to ask my right hon. Friend to do anything, really. I congratulate him on the Budget, and I would ask him not to repeal the duty on tobacco. I know it is not a popular thing to say, but what is the good of saying popular things? We are here in the House of Commons to say what we think is best for the nation, and I say now—and I think most hon. Members will agree with me—that the rate at which we are consuming tobacco is in many ways a menace to the country, so I hope my right hon. Friend will not listen to appeals on this subject—this passionate plea for the poor man's pipe. I think that sometimes people in public life have gone astray by smoking pipes. [Interruption.] Far from making you think, you do not think. I think it is a positive danger even for the workman. I want to congratulate the Chancellor on his very moderate and fair Budget, and to remind him that next year there are other things

that he could tax with great profit to the State and great help to the people.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I think the Noble Lady is arguing under a misapprehension as to what are the duties and the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Chancellor were to take the advice of the Noble Lady and put a prohibitive tax on tobacco, it would simply mean that he would not get the revenue that he requires. Consequently, not being a Minister for the reform of the habits of the people of this country, he naturally fixes his taxation with a view to getting the greatest possible return. The law of diminishing returns applies particularly in the case of taxation, and, therefore, the Noble Lady, while she might be an instrument for reforming the habits of the people who smoke tobacco, would be doing a great disservice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she were able to persuade him to increase the duty on tobacco to the extent of making it impossible for the poorer people to purchase what they want.

Viscountess Astor: I did not say that I wanted to prohibit it entirely. I said that I wished we could limit smoking. Does the hon. Gentleman know that when people give up smoking, they oat more, and, I might say, sometimes eat and drink more too?

Mr. McCorquodale: As a non-smoker, may I protest against that statement, that non-smokers drink too much?

Mr. Naylor: The Noble Lady is still arguing under an economic and a financial misapprehension. Whether she desires the duty to be prohibitive or merely limited in character, the effect is the same, and the only difference is one of degree. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the best man to judge as to whether the return from a certain level of taxation is going to give him more or less. I wish to join with those who have spoken from these benches in the protest that is made against taxing a commodity which has become more or less a necessity for those who use tobacco, and I believe the Chancellor would be well advised, if the circumstances of his position admitted it, to consider whether he is not committing an injustice against the poorer users of tobacco. For that reason I hope that some consideration will be given to


the position of the man who looks upon tobacco as a great soother. As one who does indulge occasionally, I can assure the Noble Lady that smoking does add to one's powers of thinking, and for that purpose I would recommend the Noble Lady to try a cigarette or two occasionally as it might add to her powers of reasoning and she might be less inconsistent when she enters into a discussion of this character.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: When the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) said that in the event of the repeal of this duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be faced with a difficulty in raising the revenue thus lost, I felt that he was on dangerous ground, in view of the presence in the Chamber of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), whom I see opposite. I felt that the door was being opened to the riding of certain hobby horses which we have seen from time to time. I wish, however, to congratulate the Noble Lady on having intervened, for the first time in my experience, in a Debate on the Finance Bill without the word "beer" passing her lips.
If I understood the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) aright, he made a suggestion which I thought was casting something of an aspersion upon the working classes whom we are all here to represent, when his argument seemed to me to develop along the line that if a duty of this kind remained on, they would have to reduce their expenses on the necessities of the household while smoking was maintained. I am bound to say that I think the average working-class family have a very much better sense of proportion than that. I know that all of us—it is not confined to those who may have low wages—may have bad times—I have had them myself—and one of the first things that I reduce on those occasions is this sort of expenditure upon smoking, and I am certain that the working classes will have the same sense of proportion. If it is suggested that they maintain cinema-going and smoking in exactly the same circumstances when taxation of this sort is imposed, to the detriment of the children, I am bound to

say that that is not the experience that I have had of working-class families; and, if I may say so with respect, I think the right hon. Gentleman was rather straining that argument for the purpose of discrediting this duty.
The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) also, in speaking of My Lady Nicotine, was, I thought, in danger of exaggeration when he said that this duty would prevent the comfort which we derived from her society. I would only say that I think it might result in some of us seeing a little less of her than heretofore, and that it might be a good thing for the other ladies if we saw rather less of My Lady Nicotine. The hon. Member, when he suggests that we are prevented from seeking that company, is in fact suggesting that it may be that we shall have to smoke less, and I agree with the Noble Lady that that might not be a bad thing. Finally, I would emphasise the point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing his Budget, has, I think, been right in imposing taxation upon luxuries in a time of emergency. After all, however much we may enjoy our smoking—and I enjoy it as much as does any hon. Member—the fact remains that it is a luxury, and in times of national emergency the taxation of luxuries is something which we ought to support. Although, as I say, I enjoy smoking as much as does anybody in this Committee, I shall go into the Lobby in support of this Clause.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: We fully recognise the difficulties under which the Chancellor of the Exchequer labours and the burden that is laid upon his shoulder of securing the revenue in this particular year, but no one believes that the right hon. Gentleman has really exhausted the various directions in which additional revenue could have been obtained. It is singular in that connection that the National Defence Contribution, which has not brought in the amount anticipated by the Chancellor himself, has not been increased, for here was surely a very fertile field for additional revenue for the Chancellor. The crowning point of our argument, I think, ought to be that until the standard of life in the country is raised considerably higher and there is no such thing as a population living upon or below the poverty line—and we know that there are


many thousands, in fact millions, who are in that position—then the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not morally entitled to add at all to the burdens and the budgets of that class of the population. It is for that reason that we contend that the Tobacco Duty, and also the Sugar Duty are immoral taxes and ought to be resisted by this House, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to yield to the entreaties that this should be done. It has been stated that the Tobacco Duty is a luxury tax. Surely, no one who knows the habits of the working classes in particular would support that statement. The Noble Lady is little entitled to argue on that subject, first, because she is not associated with the working classes and, secondly, because she has not experience of smoking.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member says that I am not associated with the working classes. What kind of people does he think I represent in Plymouth, and have represented for 20 years? If they are not the working class, what are they?

Mr. Adams: I agree that the Noble Lady does represent a section of the industrial workers, but what I meant was that her life has not been cast on such lines as enable her definitely to make the assertion that she did. Far from tobacco being a luxury it is an urgent and imperious necessity of the industrial workers. If there be some people who do not avail themselves of the advantages, socially and individually, which are provided by tobacco, that is no argument against our case. We say that even if this tax has to be imposed, it is imposed in a very crude way. It is a basic tax. It will mean an increase of something like 1½d. per ounce upon tobacco users. That is a most severe tax. The heaviness of the tax will be realised when we bear in mind that it will produce £8,000,000 in a full year, while the National Defence Contribution, which is imposed partly on those who are making large profits out of munitions is supposed to bring in only £25,000,000. Clearly, that is a most inequitable distribution of the burden. I contend that the tax should have been an ad valorem one. That would impose a much lighter tax upon ordinary raw tobacco, which the workers use mostly, and would increase the tax upon such things as cigars. I have no doubt that

the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have obtained the amount for which he has estimated by making the tax more equitable than it is.
There is another aspect of this tax. For a quarter of a century, at least, whenever there has been an increase of the basic duty on tobacco it has been accompanied by an increase in the tax on foreign cigars in the same proportion; but for a reason which has not been explained to the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abandoned that, and is thereby conferring a benefit on the producers of foreign-made cigars, manufactured in the United States of America and the Island of Cuba. I fail to see any justification for that course. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received very strong and urgent protests from cigar manufacturers in this country with regard to the way they are being prejudiced, as against the manufacturer of foreign cigars.
I should have been glad to have been able to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this form of taxation, but as long as you have a tax which undoubtedly adds to the burdens of our underpaid section of the community, a statement which cannot be challenged, then it is a bad tax, a pernicious tax and an unjust tax. In spite of the desire of the Virginian lady that tobacco smoking should be prohibited, we honour the memory of Sir Walter Raleigh too much to desire that smoking should be prohibited. Probably one of the greatest benefactions, far beyond the introduction of the potato, which we have received at the hands of this Elizabethan voyager, was the introduction of tobacco. I am surprised to find the Noble Lady disloyal to the land of her birth, and I hope the time may come when the example of tobacco smokers may be such as to cause the Noble Lady herself to become an indulger in this excellent habit.

4.51 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene and reply to the Debate before we adjourn. There has been argument as to whether it is a good or a bad thing to smoke, whether people smoke too much or too little, and whether people spend too great or too small a part of their wages on tobacco. Of course,


everybody has his or her own opinion on the subject, and hon. Members have expressed theirs. The Noble Lady, who wishes people to give up smoking, is adding one more to the many unpopular causes which she champions in this House. She always does it so charmingly that we look forward to whatever may be the next cause that she will champion.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) says that smoking is an imperious necessity, and he calls this an immoral tax. That is rather a strong adjective for what my right hon. Friend is proposing. The real answer to the arguments against the Clause is that we cannot possible afford to leave out the Clause. It would mean that the extra imposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined in his Budget statement would not be made. It is true, as the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) said, that the increase in the consumption of tobacco is very considerable year after year, and my right hon. Friend, on the basis of the present duty has been getting more and more revenue. When the duty was put up to 9s. 6d. in 1931 the amount of tobacco retained for home consumption was about 145,500,000 lbs. in the financial year of 1931–32; in 1938–39 the figure had risen to over 192,000,000 lbs. Now the time has come in the opinion of my right hon. Friend when we shall ask for a further increase in the income from this commodity, by raising the duty. The hon. Member pointed out the increased revenue from the increased consumption, but he forgets the increasing need for money, owing to the position in which we find ourselves. If we were to give up this proposal we should be losing what we anticipate will amount to £7,000,000 this year and £8,000,000 in a full year. The mere mention of that figure will be quite sufficient for the great majority of hon. Members to realise that we cannot accept the deletion of the Clause.
It has been said that this increased duty imposes a burden upon the poorer section of smokers. My right hon. Friend has frankly admitted that. It would be very foolish not to do so. We have to face the fact and recognise it. On the 2nd May my right hon. Friend said that

a common tax, dealing with a widely used article like tobacco, is bound to be felt by all who use that article, and is bound, in proportion to the total income, to be felt more severely by the person with a small income than by a person with a larger income." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1939; col. 1741, Vol. 346.]
We have, however, to take full account of all the circumstances in which we find ourselves and for that reason I ask the Committee to support the Clause.
Let me say a few words about the rate of duty on imported cigars. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) raised that question, and I have had an opportunity, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, of receiving a deputation on the subject. The short answer is that while it is true that in the past when the tobacco duty was increased, the derivative rates on all forms of manufactured tobacco were increased in the same proportion as the basic rate on leaf, this is the first time that the increase has been on a flat rate in both cases, and the view of my right hon. Friend is that the margin between the two duties was already as high as was reasonable. The protection at present duties, after allowing for wastage in manufacture, amounts to no less than 7s. 8d. a pound. That is a good protective margin. In all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend thought that the margin had been extended sufficiently and that the increase should be on a flat rate. I hope, therefore, the Committee will decide to maintain the duties as they stand in the Bill.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman says that the protection that existed was justified, but there was no justification for increasing in. The case that we are making is that, whether the protection was adequate or not, it is being decreased. There was a difference between the tax on the manufactured and the unmanufactured tobacco as far back as 1887, when the tax was first introduced, and that differentiation continued and was increased during the period that Liberal Governments of those days were in office. The right hon. Gentleman, however much he may have abandoned his Free Trade principles to-day, was-then an ardent Free Trader. He was not in the House during the early part of the period.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): Did the right hon. Gentleman say 1887 or 1787?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: 1887. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House then, but he was, and was a member of the Liberal Government, before 1914. The differentiation was increased in 1909 and during the War years the proportion was maintained. The position broadly is that, owing to wastage, the amount of unmanufactured tobacco produces only 14 ounces. If we keep the flat rate of difference, as the Chancellor

is proposing to do, it means that he is taking off a protective difference of about 3½d. a pound. He keeps the actual margin between the two prices the same, but inasmuch as there is wastage, of course that is to the detriment of the manufacturer in this country. The tax, therefore, is vicious and ought to be resisted.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 127.

Division No. 189.]
AYES.
[5.5 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
De la Bère, R.
Keeling, E. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Denville, Alfred
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Mentrose)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Doland, G. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Donner, P. W.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir H. H.
Kimball, L.


Apsley, Lord
Drewe, C.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Assheton, R.
Duggan, H. J.
Latham, Sir P.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dunglass, Lord
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Eastwood, J. F.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Edmendson, Major Sir J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Ellis, Sir G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Levy, T.


Beechman, N. A.
Emery, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lipson, D. L.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Little, J.


Blair, Sir R.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lloyd, G. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Evans, Capt A. (Cardiff, S.)
Loftus P. C.


Boulton, W. W.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Findlay, Sir E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bracken, B.
Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brass, Sir W.
Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Goldie, N. B.
McKie, J. H.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Macquisten, F. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Magnay, T.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Bull, B. B.
Granville, E. L
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. O. R-


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Markham, S. F.


Butcher, H. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Marsden, Commander A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Carver. Major W. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Medlicott, F.


Cary, R. A.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hambro, A. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chatter)
Hannah, I. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Halsam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F.F. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Moreing, A. C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morgan, R. H. (Worecster, Stourbridge)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hepburn, P. G.T. Buchan-
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.).


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Holdsworth, H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Holmes, J. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hopkinton, A.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Dun (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Crookshank, Cant. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Peat, C. U.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hunloke, H. P.
Petherick, M.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hunter, T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Pilkington, R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Ponsonby, Cot. C. E.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Jennings, Ft.
Pownall, Lt. Col. Sir Assheton


De Chair, S. S.
Jool, D. J. B.
Purbrick, R.




Radford, E. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Turton, R. H.


Rankin, Sir R.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Snadden, W. McN.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spens, W. P.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Rosbotham, Sir T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwin)
Storey, S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Salmon, Sir l.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Salt, E. W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wise, A. R.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Tasker, Sir R. l.
Womersley, Sir W.J.


Sandys, E. D.
Tate, Mavis C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Scott, Lord William
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wragg, H.


Selley, H. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
York, C.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Thomas, J. P. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Simmonds, o. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Mr. Munro and Lieut.-Colonel Herbert.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Titchfield, Marquess N



Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Touche, G. C.





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Gibson R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker,


Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Groves, T. E.
Ritson, J


Barr, J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hardie, Agnes
Sanders, W. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hayday, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Sloan, A.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Frankel, D.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon.(Hackney, S.)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

5.13 p.m.

At this juncture the sitting was suspended to enable the House to take part

in the welcome to the King and Queen on their way to Buckingham Palace.

6.0 p.m.

Sitting resumed.

CLAUSE 2. — (Increased duties and drawbacks on sugar, molasses, glucose and saccharin.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Barnes: I oppose the Motion that Clause 2 be embodied in the Finance Bill, on the ground that it imposes additional duties upon sugar. I trust that on this occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not use the rather worn-out argument that the Government cannot afford to drop this proposal. We are becoming rather familiar with that argument from the Government when it affects any proposal which we bring forward to ease the burden on the poorer sections of the community. But in the case of cinematograph films, for instance, the Government have already found it possible to make a concession. It is a concession with which, I, personally, agree. Nevertheless, it destroys the argument that the Government cannot accommodate themselves to any change in the finances of the Budget.
My opposition to the additional burden on sugar which this Clause proposes, is based on several grounds. There is, first, the ground that this is an important, indeed an essential item in the diet of the people. It cannot be argued that sugar is a luxury as it is used in household economy to-day. My second point against the proposed increase of taxation is that sugar is an important ingredient in foods such as jams, preserves, cakes and confectionery. It finds its way into almost every branch of cookery. When we examine the practice of the trade in the sale of sugar we find that it is one of the few commodities in regard to which the trade does not aim at making the usual margin of profit. Sugar is generally sold in the grocer's shop with a narrower margin of profit than almost any other article. This means that there is no margin to be shared between the trader and the public, and any increase in duty passes automatically to the customer, because of that practice of the trade. My third point is that this is an inopportune moment at which to increase the Sugar Duty. General market conditions throughout the world have tended to increase the price of sugar in the course

of normal trade, for some months past. When normal trading conditions tend to raise the price of a food commodity, that is not the time for the Government to accelerate the process by an addition to the duty.
My fourth point is that this article has been unfairly selected for taxation. The tendency has been to increase the duty on sugar at a higher ratio than that which generally prevails in relation to food commodities. In the Debates on the Budget Resolutions, reference was made to the fact that the burden of taxation on sugar now is eight times more than it was before the War. References to conditions which existed before the War are apt to arouse some hilarity on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this case I am not even appealing to the status quo, but an increase of eight times in the burden of taxation on this commodity, is out of proportion to the general level of taxation and to the increase in that level during the same period. This commodity, I contend, is bearing more than its fair average share of taxation. Another point on which I oppose this additional duty, is its relation to the general legislative tendency which has developed in recent years covering the whole field of food taxation. Not only has there been a tremendous increase in the percentage of taxation on foodstuffs, but we have had a wide range of foodstuffs brought within the area of taxation. On top of that, the trend of Government policy has been to place added burdens on foodstuffs by levies, subsidies, quotas, import duties and marketing schemes. We hear a great deal in the realm of foreign affairs about encirclement. Here is a policy of encircling, by all kinds of duties and penalties, the food of the mass of our people. All aspects of this policy which is developing, seem to converge on the one point of extracting sums from the consumer by a variety of devices, to add to the revenue of the country, apart from the increased taxation burden.
The general defence of the Treasury on this occasion appears to be that even in the exceptional budgetary conditions prevailing, indirect taxation contributes only 37·5 per cent. of the national income raised from taxation, whereas direct taxation is responsible for 62.5 per cent. of it. This argument leaves me cold. No one can argue that the difference between the relative positions of the wage-earner


and the well-to-do person in this country is represented by a difference of two to one in these percentages in the favour of the well-to-do. It appears to me that if we were to proceed upon the correct ratio we could justifiably plead for a much lower percentage of indirect taxation. In support of my contention that this additional imposition on sugar should be repealed, I emphasise again the general tendency of the Government to impose unnecessary burdens on foodstuffs by a variety of policies. For instance, under the Ottawa Agreements taxes were imposed on wheat, butter, cheese, eggs, condensed milk, fruit and other articles —a range of commodities all of which are essential in the working-class household. Apart from the Ottawa Agreements, there are import duties on potatoes, tomatoes, fruit, poultry and vegetables. Leaving out poultry this is another range of foodstuffs all of which are essential in the working-class home.
I should say that approximately £50,000,000 will be raised this year by indirect taxation on foodstuffs. Yet when were late this method of taxation to the general health, the physical standard and the happiness of our people, what do we find? Medical experts, among whom Sir John Orr is an outstanding example, who have specialised on nutrition in relation to food values and supplies, state that to bring our food consumption up to a good nutrition standard, we should increase our consumption of milk by 80 per cent., butter by 41 per cent., eggs by 55 per cent., vegetables by 87 per cent. and meat by 29 per cent. Yet in face of that situation the Government propose a further imposition of duty on an article like sugar which, as I have pointed out, apart from its own importance as an article of diet enters into the preparation of many other commodities. This is being done at a time when 50 per cent. of our population are below the standard which I have indicated and 20 per cent. are even to-day below the British Medical Association's minimum standard of nutrition.
On these broad grounds I oppose this Clause, both on the merits of the proposal itself and on the question of the manner in which it fits into the general scheme of food taxation. I trust that on this occasion the Committee will develop the same kind of interest in and opposition to the Government's proposal that we have

sometimes seen engendered in political life, in regard to other specific duties. It is interesting to note the general situation with regard to this Finance Bill. The Government are imposing additional burdens on the great mass of the community. They are also calling for additional contributions from special sections of the community. We see that sectional interests in the community are developing a greater capacity for political pressure, both on Members of Parliament and on the Government, than is possessed by the great mass of the citizens of this country, on whose votes we depend and with whose rights we are entrusted. Politics in this country are reaching a rather deplorable state when the great citizen interests for the protection of which Parliament is supposed to exist, are increasingly ignored and the pressure of sectional interests in the community is increasingly effective in influencing the policy of the Government. I trust that on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has hitherto made very little response to any appeal which I have ever made in this House, will show a more reasonable attitude.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: On behalf of my hon. Friends— [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"]—that does not make our opposition any less strong—I wish to associate myself with the opposition which has been put forward to this Clause, and for the reasons, among others, which have been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). He started out in the traditional method of a sound discourse, with a firstly, secondly and thirdly, and even reached a fourthly, but his stock of points was not exhausted when he reached the traditional termination, because he went on to enumerate some seven or eight reasons, all of them valid and of substance, why the Committee should support the rejection of the Clause. Sugar is an article of universal consumption by people of all kinds and at all times of their lives, and it is a matter of concern that a further burden should be placed upon a substance of which they consume so much directly and which also enters into the preparation of innumerable articles of consumption My hon. Friend was concerned to show the relationship of the direct and indirect taxation which it is proposed to raise under this Finance Bill. He said that 37·5 per cent. of the revenue to be raised
was from indirect taxation and 62.5 per cent, from direct taxation, but these figures, for a reason which he gave, have very little relevance at the present time. In recent years we have had a whole series of imposts placed upon the indirect taxpayers. In the case of sugar there is an immense levy upon the consumer, and we have a varying tax upon every sack of flour. On coal and, indeed, a whole host of other products, we have indirect taxation which makes these figures which are quoted from year to year of very little value.
My hon. Friend quoted the figure of £50,000,000 as representing the amount of these indirect imposts. As a matter of fact, the House has never been given any official estimate of what these indirect imposts of a direct kind may come to, and I think it is time we had such an estimate, for our comparative figures are of little value until we do know exactly where the indirect taxpayer stands in relation to the direct taxpayer. The only estimate I have seen, and it is a responsible one prepared for the "Banker" by a responsible writer and appeared about two months ago, was of the order of £100,000,000, and not £50,000,000. If that is so it is a matter of great consequence in considering the general scheme of taxation in this country. We might get—perhaps it might be arrived at by question and answer—some estimate of what these indirect imposts, and the imposts arising from the activities of the marketing boards, amount to, because they inevitably raise prices and also limit the choice of the consumer as to the sources from which he draws his supplies. It is unnecessary that I should repeat the varied reasons which my hon. Friend submitted for the rejection of this Clause, and for those reasons, and for the others which I have mentioned in some greater detail than he did, I hope the Committee will reject it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I should like to voice a protest against this Clause on the ground that of all the commodities consumed in a working class home, sugar is probably the most widely used. On more than one occasion when opposition to certain taxes has been put forward it has been pointed out that if an individual did not wish to pay the tax he could limit his use of the commodity which was taxed, and in the

case of tobacco, for example, that is perfectly true, but sugar enters into almost every article of food that is used, particularly in working class homes. I venture to say that never is a meal eaten in the home of a worker without sugar being consumed. It is not simply a question of putting ¼d. per lb. on sugar and of reckoning up the additional charge on the 4 lb. of sugar which is used for sweetening the tea as showing the extent of a worker's contribution in respect of sugar. I had hoped that when I made my small contribution to this Debate the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would have been present, in order that I might have her support when I put in a word for the drink of the teetotaller. The price of mineral waters has been commented upon on more than one occasion, when I have been sitting with people who have been drinking what is looked upon as a more substantial beverage, because the price is out of all proportion to that of beer. I hope I may now have the support of the Noble Lady for the rejection of this Clause, in the interests of those who find it more convenient to drink mineral waters than beer. The Clause increases the taxation on sugar, and saccharine is also included. That affects the price of mineral waters, and although it is suggested that beer is the national drink of the workers I want to suggest, quite sincerely, that mineral water manufacturers are far more dependent upon the working classes than are the brewers, and that the duty which we are discussing now is the one thing that makes mineral waters dear in the real sense of the word. When we compare the cost of a glass of mineral waters with the cost of a glass of beer there is no one who can defend the price of mineral water, except upon the ground, as to which perhaps the Chancellor will tell us something, that it is impossible to consume quite so many bottles of mineral water as glasses of beer.

Viscountess Astor: The Chancellor will not know.

Mr. Tomlinson: At any rate, the Chancellor is expected to know. The point I am making is that time and time again the reason for the cost of mineral waters is the taxation upon sugar and saccharine. Saccharine is used very largely in the sweetening of mineral waters, and it must


be so used in order to prevent them becoming an excisable drink. This added tax of ¼d. per lb. on sugar means something in the nature of shillings a pound in the case of saccharine, and the mineral water manufacturer is compelled to put up his prices. I am pointing this out in order to show that it is not only at breakfast, when the working man drinks tea, that he is called upon to pay this increase in taxation. When he provides sweets for his kiddies when they go to school he is again called upon to pay, and when he buys jam, which is probably the only luxury going into the house, and which he buys in order to make bread and butter palatable, and finally when he "goes on the spree" at night and drinks ginger beer he is once more called upon to pay the increase. This is a simple method of raising a great deal of money, and it has not been realised by the Chancellor, nor is it realised by Members of the House as it ought to be, what an imposition is placed upon the worker by taxes of this kind. It is the simplest of methods of bookkeeping for the Chancellor, it is the best method of obtaining the money he wants, but it does not take into account the equaliy of sacrifice which ought to be observed in obtaining the money which the country needs.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I want to support those who are objecting to the Clause. The duty on sugar is an unfair one and ought to be repealed to-night. It is true that one can hardly expect, as things have gone so far, that it will be repealed, but that does not prevent us on these benches from once more advancing our objections. There are two reasons why we object. One was put by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) and that is that it is another example of indirect taxation, to which every democrat ought to be opposed. If taxation has to be imposed it ought to be direct taxation, so that everybody would know exactly what he has to pay. That method ought to be adopted as soon as possible, and then, when taxation was levied, whatever for, whether for armaments or anything else, everybody would know what proportion he was paying. Indirect taxation makes the position obscure, because people do not realise why the price of foodstuffs goes up, and the blame often falls on the wrong shoulders. Many

times it is the shopkeeper who gets the blame if there is an increase of price. The person who is called upon to pay wonders why there has been an increase, but the cost of the tax has to be met by somebody, although the consumer takes a long time to find that out.
I venture to say that had consumers been aware of what is happening in this matter there would have been protests on a scale which would have caused the Chancellor to do something like his re mission of the film tax. It is rather surprising how influential bodies of people can get the ear of the Chancellor. He finds out that he has made a mistake and is willing to repeal a tax for them, but the sugar tax goes on to so many shoulders that nobody seems to think it is his job to raise a protest against it, and so the Chancellor gets away with it, and there is no reason why he should take any steps towards repeal. The Chancellor may say that everybody bears a share of this tax and that is true. Sugar goes into every household, the rich as well as the poor, but can anybody say that the consumption of sugar in the Noble Lady's family bears the same pro portion to the income as it does in the case of a poor family? I do not wish to say that she and her children use more than two or three lumps of sugar like an ordinary person —

Viscountess Astor: Much more.

Mr. Tinker: I was thinking that the Noble Lady would probably use sugar like everybody else. It may be said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Noble Lady herself that taxation is paid upon that sugar, but I want to point out that what they pay in taxation does not bear the same proportion to the income of the home as it does in the case of a working-class home. A poor person who buys a pound of sugar pays a farthing out of his poor income, and the burden is much greater, proportionately, than in the case of a rich person. If we could raise the incomes of these poor people, there would not be the same objection to the tax, but every time we try to get an increase in the incomes of this section of the community we are met with rebuffs. When we try to get old age pensions raised, we are told that it cannot be done, yet these poor people who use sugar, as most households do, have to pay out of their miserable in-


come this extra taxation. There is no justification for it, and I hope that the volume of opinion in all quarters of the House will be such, even now, as to cause the Chancellor to say that something must be done to find this money in other directions.
He may ask where he is to get the money from. He may say that he has fixed his balance sheet, and it would be very difficult to alter it. But there are plenty of ways that I could find for him. For instance, the profits tax could be increase, Income Tax, if necessary, could be increased, and certainly I would have the Death Duties much more than they are at present. When people have a certain income, they do not require any more in order to buy the ordinary things of life, and it would be much better for those who hold all this wealth to pass it on to the State in order that the State may make better use of it. I suggest that the Chancellor should repeal this tax, and, if he does, we will help him to find the money in some other way. I hope that this Committee will so rally round our appeal that he will reconsider the matter, as he has done when pressure brought to bear upon him has caused him to review and repeal some taxes. Therefore, once again I raise my voice in protest, and join with my colleagues in asking the Chancellor to consider this tax once more and see if he cannot cut it away and get the money somewhere else.

6.33 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I am not going into the question of the respective taxation on rich and poor, but I know that no people in the world are taxed higher than is the case in this country. I have never contended against taxing the rich; if you do not tax the rich, whom are you to tax? Everyone knows that the taxation in this country is fairer than anywhere else in the world as far as rich and poor go. Although the tax on sugar may, in a way, be necessary, I think it is lamentable, because, as has been said, it does hit the ordinary person, who is tremendously dependent on sugar. We talk a great deal about keeping fit, and in that regard sugar is a vital necessity. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would be possible for the Government to consider taking off some of the millions that they are giving to the sugar beet industry as a subsidy,
which even the Labour Government had not sufficient courage to take off when they found it, so that it has now become a vested interest. If that subsidy to the sugar beet industry were reduced, it would be possible to reduce the taxation on sugar. The subsidy is most unsound. Everyone knows that it is a ramp, and it was a mistake from the first —

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am afraid we must not discuss the subsidy on sugar beet.

Viscountess Astor: I thought I should be in order in suggesting that the Government should take it off.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: On a point of Order. Seeing that a part of the Sugar Beet Subsidy consists of the remission of Excise duty, is it not bound up with the question of the taxation of sugar, which we are now discussing?

Viscountess Astor: I think the subsidy on sugar beet is far too great. It is one of the scandals with which all quarters of the House have had something to do, and it is about time they faced up to it. If we have to raise money, we ought to face these subsidies fearlessly, and I wish the Government would look into the Sugar Beet Subsidy again, so as to be able to do without taxation on sugar.

6.36 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The Noble Lady is always very suggestive in her remarks on the subject of sugar beet, but, as I do not want in any way to transgress your Ruling, I will reserve the discussion of that subject for some more suitable occasion. The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that he was getting very familiar with the argument that we cannot afford any remission of taxation, but I hope that in this case familiarity will not breed contempt, for me at any rate, although, familiar as the argument is, I must use it again on this occasion. We have had many discussions on the Sugar Duty, and there is nothing very novel that anyone could say about its effects. As we all know, sugar is an important constituent in the diet of everyone in this country. It is an ingredient in many forms of foodstuffs. We have heard from the hon. Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Tomlinson) the complaint that is made with regard to temperance drinks, and we have also heard the wail of those


who are interested in that much better beverage, beer; but, on the other hand, I must remind hon. Members that the sugar used as an ingredient of manufactured articles like jams, cakes, chocolates, pastries, temperance drinks, beer and the rest is only about half the total quantity consumed and I very much doubt whether this extra ¼d. a lb. is going to have anything but a completely negligible effect upon them and their prices.

Mr. George Griffiths: May I point out to the Financial Secretary, who represents a Lincolnshire constituency, that in the North they do not sell sugar at prices like 2¼d. a lb.? It is always the nearest halfpenny or penny, so that the increase will not be ¼d., but ½d., in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member is raising a different point. I was saying that the extra duty is ¼d. a lb., and something just under 50 per cent. of the total amount of sugar consumed goes into manufacture; and that amount, in the large range of commodities in which it is used, is not really going to have any appreciable effect on the price of these commodities. That was all that I was saying, in answer to a point that was made.

Mr. Burke: Does the Financial Secretary realise that the 2 lb. pot of jam that goes into the ordinary household— possibly two of them in a week—is going to cost Id. extra as the result of the duty?

Captain Crookshank: I should have to look up a great many cases in order to make sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is universal, or whether it happens to be a special case. I was merely answering a point that was made that an increase in the Sugar Duty on this occasion was inopportune. Any increase in taxation at any time is normally considered to be inopportune by the people on whom it falls, but let us, if I may say-so with respect, get this matter back into the right perspective. We all agree that there may be some difficulty as the result of any particular increase in taxation which is dealt with in this Finance Bill, but, for all that, if we look back to the time when the Budget was opened by my right hon. Friend. the general opinion

expressed in the House and throughout the country was that it was a reasonable and fair lay-out that he put before us in order to raise the money required, not only for the increased burden of armaments, but for all the other great services with which we are all so intimately concerned. Therefore, it having been acknowledged that the general picture was a fair and reasonable and proper one, and that there should be a certain amount of taxation from this source and a certain amount from that, I say that, looking at the matter in its widest perspective, this was one of the ingredients, and for that reason it cannot be taken away without not only upsetting considerably the calculations of my right hon. Friend, but also distorting the picture, the general reasonableness of which everyone admitted, which he put before us. Finally, the short answer is that to accept this Amendment would mean a loss which we estimate at £4,000,000 this year and £4,500,000 in a full year. That is a loss of a nature which my right hon. Friend cannot recommend the Committee to accept.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I think we have had what we really expected from the Treasury Bench. Last year the same argument was put across the Table by the then Financial Secretary with regard to the Tea Duty. Then it was a question of 2d. on the old age pensioner's tea; this year it is ¼d. on the old age pensioner's sugar. The Financial Secretary said that this Amendment would cost £4,000,000, which the Government cannot find, but they could find it elsewhere if they had the will to find it. As far as I am concerned, the tax does not hit me. If I may be permitted to relate a personal experience, a few years ago I went one Sunday morning to a service at Leeds Infirmary, when the parson said, "We all need sugar." Went I went back, I said to the sister in charge of my ward. "Sister, the parson has told me this morning that we all need sugar. I want some." She said, "George, you have too much of it." That was because I was suffering from diabetes. Therefore, the sugar tax does not hit me very much. but it hits my people—the workers and the old age pensioners. As I have already pointed out, in the North it is not merely ¼d. a lb. They do not put on ¼d. a lb., but ½d.

Viscountess Astor: Shame!

Mr. Griffiths: It is a shame, but it is done, and this ½d. which is put on to sugar means, to an old age pensioner and his wife, an increase of at least 2d. a week. At present, the tax on sugar, although it may appear small, is something like I¼d. a pound; so the old age pensioner and his wife are paying about 5d. a week on sugar alone. The tax on tea is about 6d. a pound, and the old age pensioner and his wife would use a pound of tea a week. There is 11d. gone out of the I0s., apart from other indirect taxation. Consider also the man who is receiving unemployment assistance. I was addressing a meeting the other night in South Wales, and the chairman said to me, "Some of these men have been but of work for 15 years, and still cannot get work." Those people are taxed 6d. a pound on tea and I¼d. a pound on sugar. We contend that this is a far heavier burden for them to pay out of their income than what a Member of Parliament or the middle class person has to pay. If the Government are still obstinate about this, we shall have to march into the Lobby again, as we did before we went to see the King.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: Nobody likes to see any tax increased, but hon. Members should bear in mind that the price of sugar is lower here than in almost any other country. In France the price is 4d. a pound, in Germany it is 7d. a pound; and I believe that almost the only country where it is cheaper than it is here is Palestine. We ought to be very grateful that it is not higher than it is.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. John Wilmot: As the Chancellor has said, this subject of the sugar tax has been debated over and over again, but there are one or two aspects which, because of the familiarity of the subject, may have escaped the attention of hon. Members. On top of a very substantial tax on sugar there is this further impost, which now brings it to so high a figure that it is almost half the retail price. We are looking to the sugar consumers, in the main the poorest sections of the community, to provide increased revenue as great as the extra revenue to be taken this year by way of Surtax or Estate Duty. It seems to me that, looked at in

that perspective, this extra Sugar Duty is entirely indefensible. Might I make an appeal to the Chancellor? He will be aware that there is a feeling among some sections of the community that the present Government are susceptible to very powerful and wealthy interests. Whether that be true or not, it is not in the national interest at this time—or, indeed, at any time—that the public should have the impression that the Government are serving, not the whole nation but the richer and more powerful sections. I feel sure that if the Government realised the full effects on public opinion of this Sugar Duty they would seriously consider its repeal, particularly in view of the effect of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the powerful representations of the film industry—a concession which I welcome, but which will tend to give the impression that, provided a wealthy and well-organised section can bring pressure on the Government, the Government will yield.
I suggest that that is a most undesirable state of affairs, and this duty is of such a magnitude that—faced with the necessity, I admit, of producing further revenue —the Chancellor of the Exchequer is actually taking in this way as much as from Surtax or Estate Duty. I appeal to him to give some further consideration to' the matter. The effect upon public opinion! and upon the integrity of the nation of a growing belief that the Government is a Government for the benefit of the well-to-do is very serious. Nothing will more easily and readily support that view than this enormous duty, particularly in view of the effect of the concessions which have been made elsewhere. Finally, may I say this, especially to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)? A tax on necessities, such as bread or sugar, is the worst kind of taxation, because it presses most hardly on the poorest. That is a very old doctrine, but it remains true, and it is necessary to repeat it every time these increases are proposed. The poorer the family, the smaller the family income, the larger the proportion of that income that is spent on the necessities of life, and the-larger the proportion of taxation. This. is a system of taxation which varies in inverse degree with the size of the income. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider repealing this Sugar Duty.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I would not like this to go to a Division without winding up from this bench, because we do not want the Chancellor to think that we are not opposed to this tax, as a party. I wish to join especially with my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) in expressing very great regret that the Chancellor should have seen fit to raise this tax on sugar at a time when there was a very strong tendency for the price of the commodity itself to rise. The various meetings of the International Sugar Commission in the last few years have been such as to leave a very uneasy feeling among those who deal in the market that, unless the British Government, who are interested from the point of view of their Colonial administration, are willing to do something, it is going to be a lean time. The hon. Member who compared the price in this country with prices in other countries might remember that in nearly all cases of a high price there is in being a fiscal system—a very wrong system from my point of view—of close protection and Government monopoly, whereas outside Europe an almost unlimited supply of sugar can be produced by conditions of light, air and heat which cannot be got in Europe.

Mr. Assheton: I was only pointing out the advantages we had in this country.

Mr. Alexander: We have ourselves engaged in that foolish type of artificial protection, because we are remitting large sums to producers in the sugar beet factories—although, of course, that makes no difference to the consumer, because he has to pay at the rate which is charged on foreign imports. The fact is, of course, that we could be much nearer to the pre-war price of sugar than we are but for the artificial means used by the Government, on the one hand for extracting undue taxation from the consumer, and, on the other hand, for assisting the various schemes of the International Sugar Commission and the like for restricting output and creating, whenever it suits them, an artificial temporary shortage. There was a tendency to create such an artificial shortage early this year. I pointed out to the Chancellor at the time that that was happening. Certainly, the market stocks have been in a comparatively difficult position compared to the previous year, and I am surprised

that the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the Debate, said that he would have to look that up. Surely, when he is proposing an increased duty of £4,500,000 a year on the Budget he ought to examine all the conditions.

Captain Crookshank: On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) quoted the instance of a particular pot of jam.

Mr. Alexander: I have not the slightest doubt that the competent officials at the Treasury, who in 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 were receiving deputation after deputation asking for reductions in the Sugar Duty because of the reduced consumption, as a result of the high price of the secondary products manufactured with sugar, could have given the right hon. Gentleman the whole of that information before he came down to the House, and they could, I believe, have given him the latest quotations from "The Times." I want the Chancellor, although I do not hope to move him from his £4,500,000— [An Hon. Member: "Do not say that."] Well, I hope we shall move him; but, whether we move him or not, he ought to give an undertaking that the appropriate Department of the Government will examine what is happening in the sugar market and what is to be the Government's attitude, because it has, in the long run, a profound effect both on the consumer of sugar and on the user of sugar as a raw material in manufactured goods. I entirely agree with the arguments put forward so eloquently by my colleagues on the social principles involved, and I hope that if the Chancellor remains adamant we shall vote solidly against this tax.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: We have heard that the price of sugar in this country is lower than in any country except Palestine. Is that not accounted for by the fact that we have a much higher Income Tax and Super-tax and other high taxes which enable sugar to be sold at a lower price to the public? Will the right hon. Member deny that?

Mr. Alexander: Certainly. I should say that the higher prices for sugar to the consumer are in countries where practically all imports are excluded. We have a higher duty paid by our people here than is paid in those countries. It


is not a question merely of taxation; it is a question of rigidly building up an import barrier round a country in order to boost home industries.

Captain Heilgers: I want to ask only one question of the right hon. Gentleman. Are we to take it from his speech that he is in favour of the abolition of the remission of Excise Duty in favour of home grown beet sugar?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member needs to ask me that, because in the course of the last 14 years I have opposed the sugar beet subsidy so often that my views are pretty well known.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes , 130.

Division No. 190.]
AYES.
[7.2 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Furness, S. N.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Albery, Sir Irving
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Moreing, A. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)


Assheton R.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Grimston, R, V.
Munro, P.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Nall, Sir J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hambro, A. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hammersley, S. S.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Beechman, N. A.
Hannah, I. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Blair, Sir R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peake, O.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pilkington, R.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T, Buchan-
Radford, E. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bresklebank, Sir Edmund
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Higgs, W. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brown, Brig.-Gun. H. C. (Newbury)
Holmes, J. S.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Bull, B. B.
Hopkinson, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Royds, Admiral Sir P, M. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Salmon, Sir l.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Salt, E. W.


Cary, R. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hunloke, H. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Sandys, E. D.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jarvis, Sir J. J
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jennings, R.
Selley, H. R.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Joel, D. J. B.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Keeling, E. H.
Simmonds, O. E.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cross, R. H.
Kimball, L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Snadden, W. McN.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


De Chair, S. S.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


De la B[...]e, R.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Denville, Alfred
Levy, T.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lewis, O.
Spens. W. P.


Doland, G. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Drewe, C.
Lipson, D. L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, P. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tasker, Sir R.


Eckersley, P. T.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tate, Mavis C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Ellis, Sir G.
Maclay. Hon. J. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Emery, J. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Train. Sir J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Markham, S. F.
Wakefield W. W.


Fildes, Sir H.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Fleming, E. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Medllcott, F.
Ward. Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Fremantle, Sir F, E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.




Wells, Sir Sydney
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colenel G.
York, C.


Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.


Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Wragg, H.





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, O. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Quibell, O. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helen*)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Silkin, L.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jonas, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, O.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S,
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Collindridge, F.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M.
Welsh, J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxtor), J.
White, H. Graham


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Wilmot, John


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3. — (Duties on photographic plates and film.)

7.10 p.m.

Sir J. Simons: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4).
The broad effect of that change would be that the Excise Duty which I proposed in the Budget Speech would not be imposed. I think the Committee will probably like to hear from me as briefly and as clearly as I can give them, the reasons why I think that change should be made. It is never easy to anticipate the difficulties that will arise in applying a new Excise duty. Naturally this was proposed only after such careful examination as I could make, but we certainly did not realise some of the complications involved. The present law about the taxation of cinematograph films is a law

imposing a Customs duty—a duty on film when it is imported. It is rather a complicated formula. When films are imported which already contain the picture—used films or exposed films—there is a tax which amounts in substance to 5d. per foot on the negative and Id. a foot on the positive print. When this Duty was first proposed, it was undoubtedly intended to put the higher duty—the 5d. duty—upon the import which was able, because it was the negative, to be the source of a great many more copies. There is no doubt at all that was the idea. The negative is the original from which you can make great numbers of copies. Unquestionably, the idea was that we could put the higher duty on the negative when it came in and then it could be used in this country for reproducing positive copies. Alternatively if the positive came in it would be charged


the lower rate of Id. Subsequently the ingenuities of those concerned, which are of course, very great, developed a system, perfectly legitimately, but undoubtedly with a view to avoiding the higher duty, by which you could import a positive, and when you got it here, create a negative from it and then use that negative to make any number of films. Therefore one of my objects in proposing the new arrangement was to put a stop to that practice by securing that the first copy of the film, whether positive or negative, should be charged the higher rate of 5d., whereas subsequent copies would be charged at the lower rate. That portion of my proposal I do not wish to change.
I had a second proposal which was not a Customs Duty, but an Excise Duty. My proposal was that we should impose an Excise Duty on blank film manufactured in this country. I proposed it at a rate which was substantially about ½d. a foot. That involved putting up the Customs duties another Id. so as to keep the balance between Customs and Excise the same. I think there is a very great deal generally to be said for that proposal, but I am bound to say that I did not appreciate—I think my advisers would be willing that I should say that they, too, did not sufficiently appreciate—that this very great difficulty would arise. If you put an Excise Duty on the blank film of a fixed rate—I suggested ½d. a foot—the Excise Duty will in fact operate very differently according to the particular purpose for which the film is used. If it happens to be used for a feature film or a film such as "The Citadel" or "Goodbye Mr. Chips," a romantic film which is going to have a great success and which may be shown first in one town for a week and then in another town for a week, they might very well carry this duty. The film would last and would be used for a considerable time. Its popularity might continue for months or for years and, owing to the fact that the film was used in that way and was earning an income for a long time, an Excise Duty on that type of film would be justified.
Suppose, on the other hand, a film which is of exactly the same kind of material, but is used for a news reel, the circumstances are entirely different for two reasons; first, the news reel is only useful as long as it is news. You want to use that film for only a few days. Secondly, in the case of a news film, you

cannot take a particular copy and hand it round from one cinema to another over successive weeks. You have to make almost as many copies as there are cinemas you serve. I endeavoured to meet that point by making an allowance, so that the duty should be reduced in the case of a news reel. Further examination has satisfied me that those allowances do not make up for the difference. In the case of a news film such as that of Their Majesties in Parliament Square to-day you would have to have separate films in use, and any duty charged by the foot would be very heavy indeed.
It may be said that we ought to have appreciated these things before. I have not wearied the Committee by telling them of other complications such as educational films, which we must consider of special importance, or yet another kind of film which I remember the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) championed in an earlier Debate. I think it was called the highbrow film. It is very often French, and comes over here as a single copy. It is reproduced very little and does not produce a great income, although it is a very important element in the service which the cinema gives.
I therefore came to the conclusion that it was a mistake to try and impose this Excise Duty. An hon. Gentleman just now referred to the Government as only paying attention in these matters to the powerful interests. That is not true, and I will give him an illustration at once. Undoubtedly the film industry is extremely well organised, and unquestionably they demonstrated vigorously against what they felt was not fair to their industry. This duty was broad enough to apply also to photographic films and plates. Amateur photographers are not organised at all, but I do not think it would be fair to withdraw this Excise Duty from cinematograph films and to leave it to apply to those who are not in a position to protest. I would never have proposed a separate Excise Duty on photographic plates; it came in as part of the general scheme. Therefore, the Amendment which I move is not merely to remove the Excise Duty as regards cinematograph films, but to remove it as regards photographic plates and films.
The amount which one loses has to be considered. I had already contemplated making concessions which would have


cut down the original estimate very substantially, but, including the pre-Budget yield I should have had about £1,000,000. I am quite satisfied in my own mind, after closely examining the matter, that my proposal was wrong and I cannot recommend the Committee to agree to it. On the other hand I want to keep the other change which I made. It seems to me plainly wrong that we should charge a higher rate of Customs Duty when the first specimen enters as a negative and yet charge a lower rate of Customs Duty when the first specimen enters as a positive, when one knows that this is done in order to produce from the positive a negative and to make by duplication in this country whatever copies are desired. Everybody desires that the reproduction of films should take place in this country. The technicians have acquired great skill and no country does it better. We desire in every proper way we can to sustain that industry.
Therefore, the effect of what I am proposing is to keep the Customs Duty as it was before. I told the Committee that I had added another penny because of the Excise Duty, but I must now remove that. I do not persist in the Excise Duty; but, in relation to the Customs Duty, I propose to bring about the reform of making sure that when the first copy comes in, whether it is positive or negative, it pays the higher rate of duty. I hope that I have made plain to the Committee what the proposals are. Naturally no Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to come forward and say that he has changed his mind and that his first plan was not right, but I have come to that conclusion and I have told the Committee frankly what I have in mind.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman, after meticulous inquiry and negotiation with all those involved in this matter, has seen fit to do the right thing, although apparently the change of mind had to take place very rapidly. It is one of the classic examples illustrating why one should not impose taxation unless all the possible repercussions have been thoroughly examined well in advance. I am with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to provide himself with revenue, but he must have accepted the advice of

those who alone could give it to him before he made his Budget statement. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman certain possible repercussions, and I am very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit on further examination to put forward this Amendment. The film trade as a whole must be very grateful for the avoidance of a multiplicity of difficulties which might have accrued as a result of the proposed Excise Duty. The right hon. Gentleman discriminated rightly between the feature film and the newsreel and the incidence of taxation upon them. I wish he had carried it one stage further and had referred to the second feature film, which is very largely made in this country. The comparison is not quite so odious as in the case of the first feature film of, say, "Henry VIII," or "The Mutiny on the Bounty," but nevertheless, there is a very large portion of them made in this country.
I have upon the Order Paper an Amendment which has not been called, proposing to leave out Sub-section (1). It was put down not necessarily with the object of removing the Sub-section but certainly of asking the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question of employment when lifting the duty from 1d. to 5d. Now the duty is to be 5d. for the first copy, whether it is positive or negative. I am credibly informed that those who have escaped their responsibility under the original law by sending in a positive copy of a film instead of the negative, paying Id. instead of 5d., have been sending their positives to a laboratory in London where, from the positive, a negative was made, and other positives then extracted from this negative. During a short space of time quite an industry has been built up by cine-technicians in producing negatives from positives and other positives from the negatives. It is a very complicated question for those who have not followed the matter with meticulous care.
The increase in the Import Duty on the positive film from 1d. to 3d. will induce the importers now to import not positives, but negatives. Two consequences automatically follow. The nearer one gets to the negative the better is the copy of the film and that will be advantageous if the negative can be imported for the same charge. To that extent, the industry built up on the basis of evading the


law will no longer be called upon to produce negatives from the positives. The result will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will collect a sum which, I believe, will be round about £180,000, while the cine-technicians in the laboratory will lose approximately £150,000 worth of work. It is one of the questions which cannot be solved and settled in the twinkling of an eye, but it is well worth consideration before the final stage of the Bill is reached. To-day I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do no more than to re-examine it from that point of view.
I have only one other question for the right hon. Gentleman, and it will be a matter to be dealt with finally on the Third Schedule to the Bill. I refer again to the question of the newsreel. The importation of newsreels from abroad conveys news to this country that we all like to see, but while the charge for importing newsreels is the same as that for feature films, it still remains inequitable, because the newsreel will be adversely affected by the change in the import duty. Two things may follow. First, he may reduce the footage of newsreel imported, and then other countries which export newsreels to this country may refuse to accept in return newsreels produced in this country. Since in both cases it would be advantageous to the cinema goer, in America and in this country, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the very last person to deny to the cinema goer the right to witness what will be on the screens, I suppose, in all parts of the United Kingdom to-night and equally important events that are filmed abroad. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not like to deprive cinema goers of an opportunity of seeing them. Therefore, I would ask him not to make any promise now, but if between now and the consideration of the Third Schedule he would put the imported newsreel in the same category as the educational film, then I think he would not only fulfil the general desire of the trade, but he would also satisfy those 20,000,000 people who attend our cinemas weekly, in that the newsreels would not be cut down because of a certain tax burden. I am sure the film trade may well feel grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday and is doing to-day.

7.32 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I also should like to express my appreciation of the action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of

the Exchequer. I drew his attention, as did other hon. Members, to the particular difficulties that emerged only gradually when this tax was examined. Anyone who has had anything to do with cinema films will realise how intricate the subject is, and it is because of those intricacies that I think some of the difficulties were not at first realised, even by some people in the trade themselves. I would like to add that not only will the British cinema industry benefit by this Amendment, but gratitude will be, or ought to be, felt by the cinema goers, because had these taxes remained, there is no doubt that sooner or later a certain percentage of the cost would have been passed on in one way or another. It is extraordinary how many of the 20,000,000 cinema goers mentioned by the hon. Member opposite occupy the sixpenny seats throughout the country. It is not only that they might have had to pay extra, but it might well have been that the length of programme, the amount of film that they could see, would have been cut down. Because of this, and because of the difficulties that we who are interested in building up a better British film industry realised, we so much appreciate the Chancellor's Amendment. I thoroughly agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in regard to the import duty on newsreels. When I spoke on this on the Second Reading, I said that it seemed to me that that kind of film was much the same as newsprint. I think that in these days of free circulation of news, by means either of print or of the films, is more than ever important, and I hope it may be possible, when we come to the Third Schedule, that a further concession may be made by my right hon. Friend.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think anyone will deny absolution to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has admitted the fact that he has made a mistake, but when listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) about the effect of this tax on the cheaper seats in the cinemas, I wondered how it was that that argument could be used with such effect in this House as it was used a little while ago, and yet, when we put forward the same arguments with reference to sugar, they are immediately dismissed. Obviously we cannot go back to that now, but when we are advancing arguments of


this nature in future, we hope we shall have the same sympathy from the hon. Member opposite as she apparently received when she put forward her plea for the cheaper cinema goer. I cannot understand—this is the main reason why I rose —why it is that the Treasury, with all the knowledge at its command, had to impose a tax like this without prior knowledge of its effect on the trade. I am bound to say that it lends colour to the assertion, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) to-night, that it is only when powerful interests, with the aid of the public Press, as the cinema industry has done in this country in the last few days, can bring pressure to bear on the Chancellor, that it seems we can get concessions made.
I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that we must accept the Chancellor's explanation of the effect that his tax would have had if he had kept it on, and, therefore, I presume none of my hon. Friends will oppose his Amendment, but I am not inclined to accept that explanation at its face value. I do not quite understand how it is that the right hon. Gentleman, after examining these proposals—and he had plenty of time to do it before he introduced his Budget—should bring them forward, and then, after great agitation in the country from an interest which is not always running on parallel lines to the interests of the poorer section of the community, he can withdraw this tax and come down here and almost make a virtue of it, as he has done to-night.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Hutchinson: I desire to express to my right hon. Friend a few words of thanks for the decision which he has announced to-day to abandon not only the duty upon cinematograph films, but also the duty upon photographic plates. The manufacture of photographic plates in this country is not very widespread. Indeed, I think it would be true to say that the bulk of the production of photographic plates takes place in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. This was certainly not a case in which my right hon. Friend yielded to the pressure of highly organised and influential interests. We had no films, we had no cinematograph theatres with

which to put our case before the public, and we sent no circulars to Members of this House. Indeed, I myself, after a prolonged wait, had no opportunity of raising this matter in the Second Reading Debate. This duty on photographic plates was regarded with considerable apprehension by the industry; it would have given rise to great difficulties in factory organisation, and in view of the conditions under which these plates are manufactured and used, I think that the yield from this duty would have been disappointing. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision which he has announced, which, I am sure, will be received with great satisfaction in this comparatively small industry, an industry which, nevertheless, gives employment to a very large number of persons whom I represent.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very wise in boldly facing the situation and then coming down to the House and announcing his decision, when, as he said, it means a substantial loss of revenue. I do not think, however, he need look very far for a means of making up that loss, because if he has the good sense to keep on the Medicine Duty, he will more than make up the loss so there is an easy way out of his difficulty. I want to say a word as to the newsreels, and I hope very much that sympathetic consideration will be given to that matter when we come to the suitable place in the Schedule. These newsreels are admirably planned and are a great feature in spreading the news in the daily life of millions of people in this country. They are very fair, they treat things in an objective way, and they are not subject to the interference or the censorship of the British Board of Film Censors, as is the case with the ordinary feature films. The only case where there was censorship was in the lamentable example during the Munich crisis, when the Government deliberately interfered through the American Ambassador, to get pressure brought in order that the views held by the Opposition and a number of Conservative Members too —

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that that is rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Mander: I fully appreciate that, Colonel Clifton Brown. I was only


making a brief, passing reference to the matter by way of illustration, and if I might complete that sentence, I was referring to the attempt then made to censor the views of the Opposition on this subject. The effect of putting on this duty would be to interfere both with the introduction to this country of these newsreels, and also, what is quite as serious, to prevent, by means of the exchange that goes on, the distribution of British news abroad. It would be wholly inconsistent with the British Government's growing interest—growing very slowly, but still growing—in carrying information and propaganda about British ideas abroad that any hindrance should be placed in the way of the distribution of British newsreels. I hope the Chancellor will respond to the opinions which, I venture to think, will be expressed to him on this subject from all quarters of the Committee.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I rise to make a short point. I am sure the Committee is generally very appreciative of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, and we congratulate him on his courage in coming down and saying that he has made a mistake and that he wants to remedy it. I want to appeal to my right hon. Friend, and through him to the Treasury, to remember when some new form of taxation is to be imposed, that it is almost impossible for Treasury officials or any others than those engaged in an industry to know what the effects of any particular tax will be before it is put into operation. If, on the other hand, an opportunity is taken to consult the interests concerned, there is every prospect of a reasonable tax being worked out and of substantial justice being done. That is a principle which has been follewed on many occasions in the past with the greatest success, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow that plan in the future.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Burke: I understand that this Amendment is to omit Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) but not Sub-section (1), and I would like to ask whether that means that photographic sensitised negative material used by amateur and professional photographers will still have to bear the increased import duty on plates and films.
All that the Chancellor proposes is to take off the proposed Excise Duty, but to leave on the import duty. What will be the exact position with regard to the photographic material used by amateur and professional photographers? Will they be subject still to an increased cost for their raw material?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to the question just put by the hon. Member is, no. There will be no Excise and there will be no increase in the Customs Duty.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: Although I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done the right thing, I do not intend to congratulate him, because I do not believe in congratulating him when the right thing is being done. I do not believe in holding out bouquets to my opponents who very seldom do the right thing from my angle. I said on the Budget Resolutions that I thought he was doing the wrong thing in this case and I am glad that he has now seen wisdom and is doing the right thing. I am also very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has omitted the Sub-section dealing with the ordinary photographic film. I cannot imagine the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else making an important concession to big interests and not doing something for the smaller people, those who use the ordinary camera. A good deal of joy is got by millions of people in using a camera. Years ago I took a very active interest in photography, and I can look back with pleasure on some interesting Sunday mornings when I was out photographing some of the beauty spots of Derbyshire. The action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken will be of benefit to many youths, and I am glad that he has omitted the Sub-section in question.
With regard to newsreels, I hope he will look into the question very seriously. The newsreel can be a good sort of education, although I must confess, as a regular cinema-goer, that I see some newsreels on some occasions upon which I should be heartily glad to put a very heavy tax, that is, when I have sat in a cinema and have had to listen to what the National Government is supposed to have done. I have had to do that more than once. The last time that I heard the right hon. Gentleman at the cinema it seemed to me that he had a flare for that


kind of work. I have on occasion heard other things with which I profoundly disagree. The educational film is a source not only of interest but of real education. I have seen a good many educational films and travel talks which have brought scenes in the Dominions and Colonies to the notice of cinema-goers. I believe these films to be extremely educative. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at the point with regard to the newsreels, so that there will be as little limitation as possible, and that the ordinary cinema-goer may have the benefit of these very interesting educational reels.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I support those who have sought to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the desirability of keeping to the minimum the duty upon newsreels; but there is a good argument which has not been advanced. If you import a very well-known feature film you use the whole of that film for showing in this country, but when you turn to the newsreel film, it may well be that you do not use half of what you import, upon which you pay duty. You may not use very much more than one-third. I do not say that it always happens, but in some cases it does happen. That seems to indicate that the newsreel stands in a different category, and for that and other reasons I would beg my right hon. Friend very seriously to consider the adjustment of the proposed duty on newsreels.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 20, leave out "and drawbacks."

In line 22, leave out from "section" to the end of the Clause. — [Sir J. Simon.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Law: I am sorry to detain the Committee, more especially as I may be very much in the invidious position of looking a gift-horse in the mouth. Like other hon. Members who have intervened in the Debate, I am extremely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the

very important concession he has made. As he pointed out when he was moving the Amendment, the concession is even more important to the newsreel industry than to the rest of the film industry. While appreciating the generosity that my right hon. Friend has shown—indeed, he has been more than generous in this case; he has been wise as well, and has relieved the film industry from complete extinction—I would ask him to extend his generosity and relieve the newsreel industry from the scope of Sub-section (1) —in other words, to remove the additional duty which is imposed by Subsection (1) on the newsreel. As far as the newsreel industry is concerned, I do not believe that from the purely narrow point of view that duty will be a very tremendous burden, because the news-reel industry can avoid the duty quite easily by refraining from importing foreign newsreels.
I seriously doubt whether that is desirable in the national interest; whether it is desirable that the importation of foreign newsreels into this country should be curtailed. On the contrary, I believe that it is important, especially at the present time, that the people of this country should have the fullest possible information of what is going on in other parts of the world. Only about an hour and a half ago the Committee adjourned in order that hon. Members might assemble in Parliament Square to join in the national welcome to Their Majesties. I dare say other hon. Members besides myself had the thought that they would have been glad to participate in similar scenes on the other side of the Atlantic. We can do so to some extent by going to the cinema and seeing it on the screen; but I wonder whether the Committee is aware, or whether my right hon. Friend is fully aware, that even that source of instruction and enjoyment has been considerably curtailed by this import duty on the exposed film. I am told that a complete record of His Majesty's visit to the United States was made and was available, but only about half of the available film was bought by the newsreel companies because, in view of the increased duty, they could only afford to pay for half of the film instead of the whole film. In other words, the first fruits of this duty have been to deprive the people of this country a full opportunity of wit-


nessing on the screen in. this country the historic visit of their Majesties to Canada and the United States.
There is this further point, which has been referred to, that if it is undesirable, as I believe it is, to curtail the import of foreign newsreels into this country, it is still more undesirable to curtail the export of British newsreels into foreign countries. At the present time the Government and the people of this country are, quite rightly, making every effort to counter propaganda hostile to the interests of this country and the interests, 1 might almost say, of western civilisation. We are endeavouring to counter it not by counter propaganda but merely by expressing to the people in other lands our English ways of life, our English values and our English ways of thought. In that way the British newsreel plays an important part but the part which the newsreel can play will very definitely be curtailed if this import duty stands.
The newsreel industry does happen to be one which delights the heart of the classical economist and would delight the heart of the Liberal party if there were any Members of the Liberal party in the Committee at the present time, inasmuch as the theory of the classical economist does actually work out in practice, and for every foot of foreign newsreel imported a foot of British newsreel is exported, by an arrangement of exchange between the various newsreel companies. Some 1,500,000 feet of newsreel were exported to Germany, Italy, the Balkans, South America and all over the world last year. If this duty is maintained so far as the newsreels are concerned, that total will undoubtedly be very greatly diminished in the coming year. I do, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider this point very carefully and to see whether he cannot add to the blessing which he has conferred upon the film industry to-day, this further blessing, which will not cost a great deal, of exempting the newsreel from the increased Customs duty.

7.55 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: May I say, in reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, South-West (Mr. Law) has said and what was said by the hon. Member who opened the Debate, that I certainly will consider this point. That was all that I was asked to do. I

am not going to give any hasty decision on the matter. It is, however, only right that I should point out to the Committee, one circumstance, so that we may get the matter into right proportion. This is a very technical subject, and it is only because I have done my best to understand it that I can speak with some amount of confidence. I understand that the anxiety of the newsreel people, their main anxiety, was due to the proposed Excise Duty, because it is the nature of a news-reel business that you have to make a great many copies of what you have photographed. Of the scene which we saw outside in Parliament Square to-day there have to be separate copies for exhibition in each cinema. Therefore, an Excise Duty on a film is a serious business for them. I know very well, because I have had very close inquiries made and representations have been made by the various sections of the industry, that that was the main thing that concerned them.
There is also another point which concerns them, if you say, whether it is a positive or a negative that is introduced, that the first copy has to pay a higher rate of duty. That has been a certain additional burden, but it is not to be compared in seriousness with the situation which, by general consent, we have relieved to-day. We must be careful in this matter, because it is a serious proposition to examine all the foreign films that come into the country at the ports for the purpose of determining which is news and which is not. I am confident that the newsreel business will not be receiving a mortal blow in regard to this matter, though I do understand that it might be very convenient, and in some way very desirable, if we could make this further exemption. I make this observation now, because I want the Committee to appreciate that what we have done is a big thing, and that this further concession which is asked for is not nearly such a big thing.
I would make one observation in reply to the hon. Member below the Gangway. As a matter of fact in considering any modification of a duty you are very much more circumscribed in your technical inquiries than many people realise. It is a very difficult thing, especially in a duty of this sort, to disclose your ideas to a large number of people who, quite honourably, but naturally, in the interest of their trade,


will be very much interested and are not always able to give you at that stage exactly the same assistance that they can give afterwards. Therefore, to a large extent you have to rely on what can be ascertained in advance without the full assistance of the trade. I say this because the experts who advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer really ought not to be regarded as under any sort of reproach because they cannot at the time get all the detailed information as to how a duty like this will work out. No one could have done so. It is only after a duty is proposed that the people themselves begin to work out how the different combinations and permutations may develop. I say that not in the least to excuse myself, but because I think it is a mistake to suppose that a Government Department does not do it on a very large scale.

Mr. MacLaren: The great thing that worries most of us is this. You are going to lose much by the remission of the tax. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea how he is going to make it up?

Sir J. Simon: Not, as far as I am concerned, by continuing to impose a completely obsolete tax on medicines. If and so far as is necessary I think we may get a contribution from a tax, which will be discussed in a few days called the Armament Profits Duty.

CLAUSE 4. — (Amendment of Section 7 of Finance Act, 1935.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: Could we be told whether this is, as it were, consequential on the change from "institute" to "Committee."? Is this merely a change in the nomenclature of the authority which receives this benefit?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, that is so. Originally the Educational Cinematographic Institute was a body established in Rome. Italy has withdrawn from the League of Nations and the present arrangements are, therefore, in a state of suspense. We have a new arrangement which will enable the different countries to supply this very valuable aid to educational films.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6 — (Reduction of Entertainments Duty on stage plays, etc.)

8.5 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out from "shall," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
cease to be charged in a case where all the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment are actually present and performing, and the entertainment consists solely of one or more of the following items, namely, a stage play, a ballet (whether a stage play or not), a performance of music (whether vocal or instrumental), a lecture, a recitation, a music hall or other variety entertainment, a circus or a travelling show.
The purpose of this Amendment is to repeal the Entertainments Duty on stage plays and entertainments by living performers. When the Budget Resolutions were passing through the House last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to make certain inquiries in regard to the operation of the tax upon this form of entertainment. We realise that he must have given a great deal of consideration to it before proposing in this Clause a reduction in the duty. He admitted that the duty imposed aggravated the disability from which the living theatre suffers and he has made this concession, which he said in the Budget statement would cost something like £290,000 in a full year. We think he should have repealed the whole of the duty upon this kind of entertainment. Far be it from me to say a single word derogatory to the concessions that have been made to certain branches of the cinema industry. I think Members in all parts of the Committee will agree with the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman adopted there, but in dealing with an industry which we are dealing with an industry which has developed very rapidly and has caught the interest and the attraction of the bulk of the people of the country, and it has become a very substantial entertainment industry. Unfortunately, at the same time the living entertainment has shown a tremendous decline. It desires and deserves the Chancellor's consideration, and I think he should go the whole hog and repeal the duty altogether. I have no figures as to the actual amount


of tax involved, but it would be a very small proportion of the Entertainments Duty that is charged.
I am sure there is no one who does not deplore the tremendous falling off, not only of stage plays but of operas and concerts and all entertainments where it is necessary to have living people taking part. Much concern is given to it by all interested, not only those financially interested but those interested from the point of view of art itself. There is no town or village of any size where there has not been a tremendous change as the result of the introduction and growth of the cinema and the form of entertainment that it gives. Stage plays, concerts and operas have almost entirely disappeared in many of the smaller towns and villages and the cinema has taken their place. In South Wales and many other similar areas there are great centres for the development of talent in music and art, and it was done very largely as the result of the form of entertainment provided by the person himself or herself taking part in amateur dramatic or operatic performances. It is not only the professional who is concerned but amateurs as well. The basis of a good cinema industry depends very largely upon opportunities which must be given to young people who have the necessary talent for acting and singing and other arts, and unless you encourage this form of entertainment I have no doubt that not only the living theatre but the cinema will suffer in exactly the same way. In my own district we have 12 to 14 workmen's institutes, built years before the Miners' Welfare Fund came into being, and they were centres for the development of art and music of all kinds, vocal and instrumental, and also amateur dramatic and operatic societies and we have made a substantial contribution to the theatres and the arts as a result of the work done in those institutes. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the effect of this tax upon the form of entertainment to which I refer.
The rival attraction to the living theatre is the cinema. I would not say a word derogatory to it. I can enjoy a film almost as well as a play, but sometimes one wants to see the real thing. It is rather deplorable that there is this tremendous decline in the theatre. One can see its effect even in London but in

provincial centres you see theatres which have been converted into cinemas and it is nothing but cinemas without a single opportunity being given to those interested in art for art's sake. They get no opportunity of seeing a live or living entertainment. I recently saw a play, the author of which is an old friend of mine, which is now being staged in the West End of London. I have never seen a play which characterised mining life in the valleys of South Wales as well as this. I have no doubt that some thousands of people will see it in London but if it was put into a film, instead of thousands, millions would see it. At the same time there are many people who like to see the live entertainment. This would not cost the Chancellor very much and it would have very little effect on the cinema, because people will go to the cinema, but the concession, if granted, will certainly render very valuable help to a form of entertainment in which I feel sure every Member of the Committee and millions of people outside are keenly interested.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Benson: It is true that in this Clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to give a concession to the living theatre, but, while we are moderately grateful for that, it must be stressed that the concession is not a very generous one. When we take the rates proposed in the Schedule after the concession has been given, and compare them with the rates when the Entertainments Duty was first put on in 1916 as a War tax, we find that, even despite this very moderate concession, the taxation on the living theatre is nearly double what it was in 1916. For example, in 1916, it was not until we came to the 2s. 6d. seat that the duty was over 2d., and now we are to pay 2d. on a Is. I0d. seat in the living theatre. Over and above those two figures, during the War, the Government took 10 per cent. of the price of a seat, and now, after the concession, they are to take 20 per cent. of the price of a seat. Those figures give an opportunity for a very much greater concession than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already conceded. The concession is going to cost something under £300,000, and to abolish the Entertainments Duty entirely on the living theatre would cost another £900,000. We have just withdrawn a proposed tax of


£800,000 on the cinema industry, which is in a far stronger position financially and far more capable of bearing taxation than the living theatre. To begin with, its gross income is enormously greater than that of the living theatre, and, secondly, in spite of the concession the incidence of taxation upon the living theatre is very much higher than it is on the cinema.
If hon. Members will compare the two Schedules, their first impression will be that the living theatre pays a less proportion of its receipts in taxation than does the cinema, but in actual fact that is not so. The living theatre pays a very much higher proportion of its receipts in taxation, notwithstanding the different Schedules, than does the cinema, and for this reason. The cinema has a continuous performance. The performance may start in the morning, as it does in the Tatler theatres and in some of the ordinary cinema theatres in London, and run on until nearly midnight. They have a 10 or 12-hour day, and there is a continuous influx and outflow of patrons. A 6d. seat in one of these cinemas on which there is no taxation may be occupied four, five, six, or even more, times during the day. As far as revenue is concerned, that particular seat may produce to the cinema 3s., 4s., or even 5s. during the day, but because the revenue is composed of sixpences not a single penny is paid in taxation. You do not get that sort of thing in the living theatre. Apart from an occasional matinee, there is only one performance, but the overhead expenses of the theatre, rent and the like, are the same. Each individual seat in the living theatre has to take more or less the same amount of money as the individual seat produces in the cinema, with the result, broadly speaking, that the prices in the living theatre are very much higher and therefore bear a very much higher rate of taxation. The 6d. seat in the cinema may produce a revenue of 3s., 4s., or 5s. a day and it pays no taxation, but a similar revenue from a seat in the living theatre will be subjected to a charge of I0d. or Is. in taxation. Right throughout the whole scale the prices of seats in the living theatre have to be high because of the single performance as against the continuous performance and the larger

number of shows run per day in the cinema.
This is a very important factor, and hon. Members should realise that it is not true to state that, merely because the scheduled rates differ, the incidence of taxation upon the seats in the living theatre is lower than in the cinema. It is not. On the contrary, it is very much higher. Unfortunately, the living theatre is nothing like as powerful as the cinema. It is not as high organised and it has not the vast resources of the cinema. Although I would be the last man to suggest that any Chancellor of the Exchequer gives way to pressure, and I would accept the explanation of the Chancellor that he realised, as a result of argument and information, that his film tax was undesirable, it is an undisputed fact that an argument, if it is stated sufficiently prudently and backed up with sufficient capital and vested interest, seems to penetrate the mind of a Chancellor of the Exchequer more easily than if it is whispered mildly by an unorganised interest.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has rather a look of Shakespeare about him, and I appeal to him to realise that the living theatre, as compared with the cinema, is not getting a square deal, and will not get a square deal even after the concession embodied in this Clause has been granted. The incidence of the tax is far higher, and, owing to the undoubted degeneration of public taste in regard to the appeal of the theatre, it is far less capable of bearing the tax that is put on. Quite apart from any question of art which was ably stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in moving this Amendment, on the pure ground of financial equity, this tax ought to be abolished. If it cannot be abolished, then the rates of taxation should all be reduced to a very much greater extent than is suggested in the Schedule in order to bring the real incidence of taxation more on to a level of equity with the cinema.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to support the Amendment, but on somewhat different grounds from those which the hon. Member has chosen. Everybody will agree that in these days taxation is


a very powerful weapon of social change. It has very great social influence quite outside mere matters of revenue and expenditure. We are living in days which are dark for the finer things of human civilisation. There have been happier times, happier days, in which the better things had a better chance than they get now. This is due, I suppose, to two causes. One, that there is a kind of Gresham's Law in connection with artistic and cultural things as well as economic, and just as in currency it used to be said, when we still had a metal coinage, that bad money tended to drive out good, so in matters of this kind the quick and easy and widespread rendering of more or less spurious artistic things makes the task of the better ones harder. The other cause may be that the days are so difficult and dangerous. There is a sort of impending tragedy weighing down people's' minds, and they do not like in their hours of leisure to have their minds made tenser than they are when they have to deal with the difficult day-to-day affairs of the world.
The result of all this has been that this generation has been the poorest of almost any generation in artistic development. I read the other day in a book by an American journalist—I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but it was interesting that he should say it—that the standard of taste in these matters was lower in this country than in any country in Europe. I hope that is not true. I do not think it is, but I am certain that it is lower than it used to be, and that its tendency is downward rather than upward. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that it would be a very grand gesture in these days for the Treasury to do something to help these things. The Amendment would cost the Treasury very little. In a Budget of the size which we now have the Treasury will not know whether they have got a mere £300,000 or not, and it will not make any difference whether they have got it or not. If you go the whole hog at a cost of £900,600, it would make very little financial difference to the Treasury, and it might easily make so much difference otherwise.
As against the gloomy picture I have drawn, I would like to point out one or two more encouraging things. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke about what was happening in South Wales. That is happening in working-

class circles throughout the country. You have in London the very remarkable development of what is called the Unity Theatre, where a number of young people, who earn their living in quite ordinary humdrum ways during the day, nevertheless have developed as amateurs a theatre which I think compares more than favourably with some of those which draw large audiences and make large profits in the West End. That kind of thing is going on throughout the country. In my own constituency a man who has spent the greater part of his life in a mill has found it possible in his spare time to write plays well worth performing, and a group of people whom he has organised have performed them. Cannot the Financial Secretary do something to help such movements by relieving them of a burden which weighs very heavily upon them and which brings into the Treasury an amount so small in character? The advantage which it brings to the Treasury is very small in comparison with the extent to which it forces down just those things which, above all others in these days, we ought to be helping and encouraging. This is one of those occasions on which by a small sacrifice the Government could do a great deal to lighten the gloom which is settling in places and quarters where the gloom ought to be relieved.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I desire to support the Amendment on two grounds. The first is that I think any taxation upon education is something to be decried, and I regard the theatre as one of the most educative institutions for the people. That being so, taxation of the theatre even in the form of an Entertainments Duty, does affect that particular form of industry. It is true to say that if the cinema industry is to continue to progress it will of necessity have to draw its authors and its actors from the living theatre. It can be proved that the living theatre has been, is, and will be, the recruiting ground for the cinema industry, and that being so it is very essential that there should be a flourishing theatre and concert industry in this country. We have witnessed during the last few years the closing down of a number of theatres because of the fact, so we are told, that the Entertainments Duty is pressing so hardly upon them that they have not been able to pay their way. These theatres have been transformed sometimes into


cinemas, sometimes into warehouses, and sometimes into stores, but the closing down of any theatre in any town is bad for the arts of that town and bad for the education of that town. It means that the younger generation have little or no opportunity of seeing living art.
There are a number of towns in this country where, at the present time, there is no theatre, with the result that children and young people have to get their artistic impressions from the cinema screen, and sometimes, unfortunately, they are rather distorted. Therefore, theatres have become bankrupt, and the touring companies which used to go round the country week by week have not been able to carry on. We have heard that the effect of the Entertainments Duty on theatres has been that they have not had sufficient money even to pay the touring companies for their services. It is possible that the removal of the tax might provide a sufficient margin not only to enable the theatres to be maintained, but to enable touring companies to go round the country. This would have an indirect benefit, for it would benefit the railways and other forms of transport, and the maintenance of theatres would benefit many artists, carpenters, electricians, and so forth. Anything that can be done to ensure that theatres are kept open, and that those which are closed are re-opened, is something that ought to be encouraged.
Therefore, I support the Amendment for three reasons. First, from the point of view of the public. It is very desirable that people should have an opportunity of going to theatres, and it is well that everything should be done to see that the theatres are kept open and that no barriers are placed in their way. Secondly, from the point of view of actors and actresses. At the present time, a large number of actors and actresses cannot find jobs, and it is tragic, after the years they have spent in making themselves proficient in their art, that they should not be able to practise it before the public. I submit that if the tax were taken off, and it resulted in the opening of theatres that are closed or the continuance of theatres that are now hard pressed, it would be of tremendous advantage to the actors and actresses. Thirdly, from the point of view of the theatre proprietors. A large number of

them have not been able to pay dividends because of the obnoxious and deterrent character of the tax. If that be true, I am sure it would rejoice the hearts of the proprietors if an announcement were made to-night that the Entertainments Duty was going to be abolished altogether, as it has rejoiced the hearts of the cinema proprietors to hear that they are not to have further burdens placed upon them.
If the removal of the duty would mean an increase of employment, as I believe it would, it is possible to conceive that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find great fields in which to pursue his ways of securing money from the public. If these people were employed instead of being unemployed, a number of them would come within the scope of the Income Tax, and therefore, what the Chancellor secured in the shape of Income Tax from those people might reimburse him for any losses sustained in removing the duty. I believe that it would be possible for the Chancellor to gain on the roundabouts what he lost on the swings. Furthermore, by removing the duty he would do a great service to the theatre industry, to art and to the people of the country, because, as my hon. Friend has said, in this world of difficulty and doubt and darkness, let us get what joy and pleasure we can, and let it not be taxed.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have great sympathy with the Amendment, because I have a close family interest in the stage. I rather agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. H. Beaumont) in his most persuasive and well-informed argument. I think that the tax on the living theatre could be reduced, but in fairness to the Chancellor, and I think in justice to the theatre, I think there is another side to the story. It is not true that the main reason the theatre has fallen on hard times is the weight of the Entertainments Duty, although that may be a factor of equal importance. The stage, as compared with the film, has not advanced with the times. That is true not so much of London as of the provinces. I know something about the performances at theatres in the provinces, and I say that, on the whole, they are not nearly good enough. The theatres in which the performances takes place are very often most


uncomfortable barns of places, with seating accommodation that is very hard when compared with the seating in the cinemas. They are awful places in which to sit for two or three hours in a night.
If hon. Members have been behind the scenes at these theatres, as I have on many occasions, they will know that in these old-fashioned theatres the conditions offered to the actors and actresses are sometimes deplorable. The rooms in which the actresses have to change and make up are cold, draughty, miserable holes. It is no wonder that many of our leading actresses decline opportunities offered to them to tour in these companies that would otherwise go round the country. While we recognise the necessity for encouraging the living stage by every means, I think we should let it go forth from the Committee that we expect of the living stage a very considerable advance in their methods, a great improvement in technique, and a greater effort to meet the legitimate modern requirements of the average citizen. I believe that the average citizen prefers a living performance to a "canned" one, but he is not prepared to accept it save in reasonably comfortable conditions, nor is he likely to be satisfied with a performance which he knows is carried through on the part of the actors and actresses in conditions sometimes of great discomfort. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the Amendment, I feel it is necessary for the Committee to bear in mind that the stage must play its part.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Denville: I had no intention of taking part in the Debate until I heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) and some of the remarks made by those who have supported the Amendment. I am at variance with my hon. Friend's statement that the cause of the decline in drama is not the incidence of the Entertainments Duty.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did not say that. I said it was one of the factors.

Mr. Denville: I have no complaint to make against the Chancellor. I am grateful for what he has done this year and in previous years, and I hope that the agitation that is going on here to-day will have the result of removing this tax altogether at a very early date. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr.

Silverman), who, spoke about the theatres being closed because of the incidence of the Entertainments Duty, might have mentioned the number of theatres that have been closed in his division. In the Nelson and Coln Division three theatres have closed down, and in the Batley and Morley Division two have gone. There are 13 counties in which there is no theatre of any description. To say that the duty has nothing to do with the decline in the strength and size of companies in the provinces is wrong as it is also wrong to say that it has nothing to do with the discomfort in theatres. As an example, I will refer to the Gaiety Theatre in London. That theatre would have been open now had it not been for the tax. I might have gone as far as to say the same tiling of the Lyceum Theatre, except that, in any case, that theatre could not have stayed because the London County Council want it, and we all know that whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) fancies, he likes, and whatever he likes, he collars. In the case of the Gaiety Theatre, however, a sum of about £20,000 was wanted for alterations in order to bring it into line with modern conditions. If the tax had been off that theatre four years previously sufficient money could have been earned to make these alterations.
Several hon. Members have referred to the amount of employment which is given by the theatre. The case of the Gaiety Theatre in London could, I am sure, be multiplied all over the country. Hon. Members from Wales know that Glamorgan was once a great theatre county. I think that they have about three theatres in that county now. There used to be something like 70 theatres in Wales, mainly in Glamorgan. There was a theatre in almost every small village in Glamorgan at one time. The amount of labour which is involved in the closing down of the theatres has never been taken into full consideration. The average small provincial theatre employs at least 50 people, directly or indirectly. If we take the number of theatres which have been closed down, and if we also consider— keeping in mind modern progress—the new theatres that might have been opened but for this tax, it will be seen that a very considerable amount of employment is involved. If we take it that 400 theatres have been closed down and


multiply that by 50, it will be seen that a very large number of people have been deprived of employment in this way. I went recently into a small town in the county of Durham where there is a theatre. Out of sheer curiosity I made some inquiries, and I found there were seven landladies there on the dole, who used to make a living out of the theatrical companies visiting that town.
I do not think it fair to say that the profession, generally, is failing in its duty. It is impossible for it under present conditions to carry on fighting against the cinemas. The cinemas are able to sell their seats three or four times every day. I am not saying anything against them; I am only pointing out the difference. They can carry the whole production about in a tin can. The leading lady never has her jewels stolen and the low comedian never falls down the back stairs and breaks his leg. The company is brought along in a small tin can, the production is put on the lamp, and there is an end of their trouble. As I say they can fill their theatres three times a day. Where in an ordinary theatre, a company would play to an audience of 5,000 people, in a cinema of the same capacity the pictures would be presented to 15,000 people. Those are some of the points which can be put forward in favour of total abolition of the tax. I have only risen, however, in order to correct one or two errors which might otherwise be spread around as a result of this Debate, and I certainly have no intention of reproving the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of what has been done.

Mr. Jagger: Would the hon. Member explain how landladies, who are not in an insurable occupation, managed to get on the dole, in the case which he mentioned?

Mr. Denville: I beg pardon, I should not have said the dole. But there is such a thing as Poor Law relief.

8.49 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure that the Committee is indebted to me for not having intervened before the hon. Member who has just spoken, because we always like to hear those who have expert knowledge upon these matters, and I was also glad to hear that with his expert knowledge he appreciated the concessions which have already been

made. It is often the case that, on these extraneous matters, we have very interesting discussions and in this case we have gone over a very wide field. I must say that I do not take such a gloomy view of the artistic development of the generation in which we are living as does the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). It is, of course, a matter of opinion and it was interesting to hear the hon. Member's view. I might be prepared to give my own view privately, but I do not think this is the occasion for doing so. We also had references to a variety of matters such as the position of the Gaiety and Lyceum Theatres in London and the accommodation provided for actresses behind the scenes—a subject on which I am unable to confirm what has been said by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). I take it from him, however, that he is speaking with some knowledge in describing those conditions. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) very cunningly brought in a reference to a play which has attracted some attention in London and I hope that his reference to it will increase the number of people to go to see it. Perhaps that is why he referred to it.
The underlying assumption in all these various speeches of hon. Members was that the living theatre was not, in the words of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), getting a square deal and that it was very important to do something for it at once. But hon. Members seem to overlook the fact that this Clause is in fact doing something for the living theatre. This is one more example of what almost inevitably occurs on these occasions. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a concession, at once everybody concerned asks why it is not a much bigger one. The Entertainments Duty has been discussed on previous Finance Bills and I think it was last year that my right hon. Friend said he would look into it. It is with great pleasure that the House as a whole learned, when he opened his Budget this year, that it had been found possible to do something. The whole point of the criticism now is whether my right hon. Friend ought not to do a great deal more. That is the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Aberdare, who asked us to "go the whole hog."


One or two of the speeches seemed to imply that the concessions involved in this Amendment were nothing very much from a financial point of view. I am afraid that is not the case. The hon. Member for Chesterfield had the figures pretty correctly. The concession which we are already making by this Clause represents about £190,000 this year and £290,000 in a full year. That, I put it to the Committee, is a considerable sum for the area of entertainment with which we are dealing. The additional cost which would be involved by this Amendment— which would have the effect of sweeping away all Entertainments Duty on these "living" entertainments would be £630,000 this year, and £960,000 in a full year. I think if the Committee reflect on these figures and bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has said, that it is impossible to make concessions of considerable magnitude this year, they will realise why the Amendment cannot be accepted. Obviously, this is a time when it is difficult to make any concessions at all in any direction, since the whole outline of our Finance Bills is being determined by the necessity for finding the

money to meet increasing expenditure. I think it will be clear to all who have heard this Debate, that it would be impossible for us, in these circumstances, to accept an Amendment with these very considerable financial implications.

Mr. Benson: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the complete abolition of the tax would make a difference of £960,000. In saying that, was he including only theatres and music-halls, or was he including various other forms of entertainment?

Captain Crookshank: I was dealing with exactly what is in the Amendment. The Amendment contains a list of entertainments the duty on which it is proposed to abolish. I say that if this Amendment were adopted, the additional cost beyond the concession which we have already made, would be £630,000 this year and £960,000 in a full year.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' for,' in line 25, stand part of the Clause."

The Committeee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 138.

Division No. 191.]
AYES.
[8.56 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hopkinson, A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Davidson, Viscountess
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
De Chair, S. S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Apsley, Lord
De la Bére, R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Denville, Alfred
Hume, Sir G. H.


Assheton, R.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Doland, G. F.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Jennings, R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Joel, D. J. B.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Eastwood, J. F.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Beechman, N. A.
Eckersley, P. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Ellis, Sir G.
Keeling, E. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Blair, Sir R.
Emery, J. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Boulton, W. W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Kimball, L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fleming, E. L.
Latham, Sir P.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Furness, S. N.
Levy, T.


Brass, Sir W.
Gledhill, G.
Lewis, O.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Liddall, W. S.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Lipson, D. L.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Little, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Bull, B. B.
Grimston, R. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Butcher, H. W.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
MacAndrew. Colonel Sir C. G.


Cartland, J. Ft. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hambro, A. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cary, R. A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannah, I. C.
McKie, J. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Manningham-Buller Sir M.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Medlicott, F.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Higgs, W. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Hills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cross, Ft. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Moreing, A. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Holmes, J. S.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)




Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Salt, E. W.
Tasker, Sir R. l.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Tale, Mavis C.


Munro, P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Nall, Sir J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Taylor, vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sandys, E. D.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Scott, Lord William
Titchfield, Marquess of


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Selley, H. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Turton, R. H.


Peake, O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Simmonds, O. E.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Radford, E. A.
Snadden, W. McN.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Rankin, Sir R.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Spens, W. P.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Storey, S.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rosbotham, Sir T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wragg, H.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
York, C.


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Russell, Sir Alexander
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Salmon, Sir I.
Sutcliffe, H.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Captain McEwen.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Grenfell, D. R
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Quibell, D. J. K.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sloan, A.


Chater,D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Collindridge, F.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson G.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J,
Wilmot, John


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Gibson R. (Greenock)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move in page 5, line 25, after "if," to insert:

in the Second Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, for the words 'three halfpence ' there were substituted the words 'one penny' and as if.


We are very grateful for the concession which has been given by the Chancellor to this industry, but I think it will be agreed that it will have no effect upon the present Entertainments Duty. The Amendment affects exclusively exhibitors in the film trade. It is not generally known that on the exhibition side of it the cinema industry is one of the most heavily-taxed industries in the country. Those engaged in it pay not only Income Tax and National Defence Contribution but a tax of approximately 16 per cent. on their total turnover as Entertainments Duty. Any seat up to 6d. is tax free. Immediately the charge for a seat exceeds 6d. a tax of 1½d. falls upon it. We have had some experience of what a penny means to the type of cinemas I have in mind, namely, those in working-class areas, and patricularly in small industrial districts with a population of from 4,000 to, say, 7,000. There was a time, not long since, when a 1d. tax was imposed on a seat where the total cost was under 6d., and, because film-goers refused to pay this duty, many cinema theatres had to be closed, and it was proved to the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that nothing short of abolishing the duty on seats up to 6d. would enable these small cinemas to carry on.
The right hon. Gentleman, realising that in some cases the attendance at small cinemas fell by no less than 75 per cent., was induced to abolish the Entertainments Duty on seats costing 6d. or less. Some experience has been gained of what happens where the total charge for the seat slightly exceeds 6d. If, for instance, the cost of providing a decent seat in a theatre which, although it may be small, provides a good entertainment, is something slightly over 6d., say 6½d., the proprietor has not only to charge the 6½d., but also an extra 1½d. for the Treasury. That has caused havoc in the cinema industry in many industrial areas. If the right hon. Gentleman could be persuaded to change the duty on seats costing from 6d. to 9d. from 1½d. to Id., it would be found that in many cases the programmes would be better, the accommodation would be better, and the attendance in seats costing no more than 8d. would be larger than it is at the moment. The 8d. seat, as the result of this 1½d. tax, has completely disappeared, and, when the small cinema is competing with the large,

modern, up-to-date cinema where the charges are divided between 6d. without duty and Is., where the tax is 2d. the small man is up against a good deal of competition which he is unable to meet. For the cinema proprietor to be compelled to charge slightly more than 8d. for some of his seats, namely, 7½d. for himself and 1½d. for the Treasury, is not only not good business, but is not good sense.
Since the crisis of last year, the patronage of many cinemas in different parts of the country has fallen by no less than 25 per cent., and in some cases even more. Bearing in mind the fact that London is not Britain, the Treasury ought to meet cinema proprietors as well as they can, so that the Treasury, the cinema proprietors and the cinema-goers may all have a square deal. I know that in my own area, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that in his area. there are many small districts where a penny one way or the other makes the difference between bankruptcy and carrying on, and I hope the Chancellor will not turn a deaf ear to the appeal I am now making. The effect of the Amendment would simply be that, where the net charge is between 6d. and 9d., the Entertainments Duty would be Id. instead of 1½d. We fully appreciate the Chancellor's difficulty, and his need for more money.
I may be told by the Financial Secretary that this would cost the Treasury £400,000, and they cannot afford it, but I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that the cinemas in this country are paying between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 annually. They are the most heavily taxed industry in the country, and it is a great tribute to the exhibitors that they have carried this burden for so long. I trust that the Government will be able to see their way to give sympathetic consideration to this change, which will not have nearly so adverse an effect on the Treasury as they think. In doing so they would be serving the small cinemas and helping the cinema-goers in those areas, while they would not affect the Treasury as much as they think, for it is quite conceivable that, if the small man could arrange to charge 6d., 8d. and 9d. instead of, as at present, 6d. and 9d., the immediate loss to the Treasury would be recouped on the 8d. and 9d. seats. I did not rise to move this Amendment bursting with optimism, but I hope the


right hon. Gentleman is going to give sympathetic consideration to the intent and purpose of it, and that sympathetic expressions will be forthcoming from him when he speaks.

9.12 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am relieved to think that the hon. Gentleman was not bursting with optimism; I am afraid the answer I am going to give will not be satisfactory to him. He is quite accurate in his forecast of the cost of the concession. He said it would be about £400,000, and that is the same estimate as I have. The cost to the Exchequer is estimated at £250,000 this year, and £400,000 in a full year. But there is a further reason which I would like to put before him, apart altogether from the expected loss of revenue, why my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment. It is that the Amendment would not do what the hon. Gentleman wants. At present the rate of duty is 1½d. on seats costing between 6d. and 7½d., and the hon. Gentleman wants to make it 1d. Then you would get this position, that mathematically you could never reach the figure of 9d., because the Amendment would not alter the range of prices, and on seats costing 7½d. and over the duty would remain 2d. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be

found very inconvenient to charge such a funny sum as 8½d., and, therefore, you could never get a seat at 9d., because, at 7½d. or over, the tax would be 2d., so that the cost of the seat would be 9½d. or I0d. The acceptance of the Amendment would, therefore, have a very awkward effect on exhibitors, and anyhow—

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is explaining, if I understand him aright, that the actual wording of the Amendment is not quite what it might be, but I hope he will not make that an argument against accepting the principle.

Captain Crookshank: Principle or otherwise, in order to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants we should have to recast the general schedule of these Duties. I was only pointing out that we are discussing an Amendment on the Paper, and not a principle. What the hon. Gentleman is after is to try to get some reduction to the inclusive price of these classes of seats in cinemas; and my short, and, I hope, conclusive, answer to that— an answer which I have already given several times—is that the cost involved is too great for my right hon. Friend to agree to.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 204.

Division No. 192.]
AYES.
[9.17 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ede, J. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Kirby, B. V.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lathan, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Foot, D. M.
Lawson, J. J,


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Frankel, D.
Leach, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Gallacher, W.
Lee, F.


Barnes, A. J.
Gardner, B. W.
Leonard, W.


Barr, J.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Leslie, J. R.


Batey, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lunn, W.


Beaumont, H. (Bailey),
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Bellenger, F. J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McEntee, V. La T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGhee, H. G.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
MacLaren, A.


Bevan, A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Maclean, N.


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bromfield, W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mander, G. le M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Groves, T, E.
Mathers, G.


Buchanan, G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Maxton, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Messer, F.


Cape, T.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Milner, Major J.


Chater, D.
Hardie, Agnes
Montague, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Cocks, F. S.
Hayday, A.
Morrison, R, G. (Tottenham, N.)


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Muff, G.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Daggar, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Oliver, G. H.


Dalton, H.
Hopkin, D.
Paling, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Isaacs, G. A.
Parker, J.


Day, H.
Jagger, J.
Parkinson, J. A.


Dobbie, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Poole, C. O.




Price, M. P.
Sloan, A.
Walking, F. C.


Pritt, D. N.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Watson, W. McL.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Welsh, ,J. C.


Ridley, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Westwood, J.


Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, H. Graham


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Rothschild, J. A. de
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilmot, John


Sexton, T. M.
Thurtle, E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, J. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Silkin, L.
Tomlinson, G.



Silverman, S. S.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simpson, F. B.
Walkden, A. G.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.




NOES


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Guest, Maj.Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Radford, E. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rankin, Sir R.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Hambro, A. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Apsley, Lord
Hammersley, S. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Assheton, R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Holy-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwin)


Bernays, R. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Boulton, W. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hopkinson, A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sandys, E. D.


Brass, Sir W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Scott, Lord William


Broadbridge, Sir G, T.
Jarvis, Sir J. J
Selley, H. R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Jennings, R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Joel, D. J. B.
Shepperson. Sir E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Simmonds, O. E.


Bull, B. B.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Keeling, E. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)
Snadden W. McN.


Cartland, J. R H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Carver, Major W. H.
Kimball, L.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Cary, R. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Latham, Sir P.
Spears, Brigadier-General E, L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Spens, W. P.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Levy, T.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lewis, O.
Storey, S.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Liddall, W. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Loftus, P. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Taylor, G. S. (Eastbourne)


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


De Chair, S. S.
McKie, J. H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


De la Bére, R.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Denville, Alfred
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Titchfield. Marquess of


Doland, G. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Medlicott, F.
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Dunglass, Lord.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Eastwood, J. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eckersley, P. T.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emery, J. F.
Munro, P.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Nall, Sir J.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Fleming, E. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Furness, S. N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Gledhill, G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G


Goldie, N. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wragg, H.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peaks, O.
York, C


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Grimston, R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pansonby, Col. C. E.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Captain McEwen.


Resolution agreed to.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Joel: beg to move, in page 5, line 28, at the end, to insert:
 "and as if Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Finance Act, 1935, were amended so as to include amongst the entertainments in respect of which such reduced rates of Entertainments Duty are chargeable, a bona fide zoo or exhibition of animals in respect of which His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that it is of substantial educational and scientific value.
The object of this Amendment is to remedy the position created by the Finance Act of 1935. As hon. Members are aware, circuses and travelling menageries receive some benefit under the 1935 Act and receive further benefit under this Act by remission of Entertainments Duty. Zoological Gardens carried on for profit are excluded from these benefits. Nearly all the big zoological gardens already do not pay Entertainments Duty because they are run by societies which do not operate for profit, but there remains the case of those other zoos with which this Amendment is concerned—namely, the bona-fide zoological gardens which operate for profit and which still pay the full amount of Entertainments Duty. There are very few societies and their profit is likely to be small owing to their dependence on weather conditions and other factors.
I am particularly interested because of a large zoo which opened in my constituency a few years ago. A great deal of money was spent in making up-to-date and well-laid-out zoological gardens. I have no hesitation in saying that it has proved a great blessing to the town of Dudley and has brought benefit not only to the people but to the trade, catering, shop, and entertainment interests in the town. It has also proved of great interest to educational authorities and schools over a very wide area, which have sent parties of school children. Because it operates for profit this zoo and similar zoos cannot claim exemption from Entertainments Duty, as, for instance, the London Zoo can do. It cannot claim even a reduced rate of tax as can circuses and menageries, because the directors of this enterprise are not willing to spoil its educational character by including acrobats and so forth.
It is a very thin line which divides the circuses and menageries from zoological societies. Large numbers of keepers and specialists employed in connection with

such societies are mostly trained from the ranks of previous menageries and circus workers and they have obtained their animal-keeping experience in the travelling shows. I hope that my right hon. Friend may consider that such zoological societies should be entitled to this remission. The Committee will be relieved to hear that if this Amendment is agreed to it will cost the State very little—and when I say little, unlike the movers of recent Amendments on the opposite benches, I mean very little. From the figures that are available to me I believe that the cost would not be more than £4,000 a year and probably less. I think it will be generally admitted that zoological societies serve a useful recreational and educational purpose, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give this Amendment favourable consideration.

9.32 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The Committee will have appreciated the zeal with which my hon. Friend has approached this problem, which, as he said, is of considerable importance to his own constituency. He pointed out that the presence of the zoo had been a blessing to all the inhabitants of the district as well as to a great number of traders and caterers in the town. I am sure that no one would take exception to the fact that he has raised the issue to-night. His estimate of the concession which he proposes we should make is of a very modest nature. He puts it at £4,000. I am not sure whether that is the precise figure of the cost of the concession. It might be a little more, taking into account other zoos, but it is true to say that it is a problem of no great magnitude. Therefore it is not possible to say that we cannot consider it on financial grounds. I shall, nevertheless, ask the Committee to reject this Amendment, for this reason—that what the Clause we are discussing has been dealing with up till now has been trying to find some relief for the living theatre.
The purpose of this Clause has all along been to try to give some advantage to the living theatre as compared with the cinema. That has been the gist of all the discussion that has taken place and it is for that reason that the concession has been put before the Committee. The living entertainment reduction was not asked for by its supporters, its opponents


or myself on the ground of the scientific or educational value of the entertainments; we were not dealing with it from that point of view. Incidentally it would be a very difficult test to apply to a zoo, but that is by the way. We were dealing with the main question of the living theatre versus the cinema. My hon. Friend wants to take the opportunity to bring in some zoos on the ground that they are of substantial educational and scientific value.
Beyond that, he pointed out that a zoo is at present not able to pay like a circus or a menagerie, and he stated that the line between a circus and a menagerie on the one hand and a zoo on the other is very thin. I should have thought there was a considerable difference between the two, but if this zoo is so very much like a circus or a menagerie, surely it might go the whole way and become one and have the advantage of the concession. [Laughter.] I must say one more thing. I am sorry that this is a matter which causes so much hilarity, but it is inherent in the topic. It is possible for exemption to be enjoyed by zoos, as in the case of the London Zoo, on the ground that it is run by a society not for profit. In that case it would come under a provision in Section I (5)(d) of the Finance (New Duties) Act of 1916, as
the entertainment is provided for partly educational or partly scientific purposes by a society, institution or committee not conducted or established for profit.
I understand that my hon. Friend's zoo is not that kind of zoo at all. It was no doubt established for the benefit of those who were in reach of going to see it, but it was established for profit. Therefore my right hon. Friend does not see why it should be exempted and have the benefit of the concession which we are making in this Clause to quite other classes, namely, to relieve what is called the living theatre as opposed to the cinema. I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, because I know that this is a matter about which he has feelings from the point of view of those whom he represents here; but it is rather a small point, and perhaps the Committee will not delay very long upon it, because we have very important Clauses to discuss.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Hannah: I represent a part of Dudley and I want to say a few words

in support of my hon. Friend and colleague. The Government have no more loyal supporter than I, but my constituents are exceedingly anxious that the Government should support this zoo and I feel that I must do the best I can. Dudley Zoo makes a profit, but profit is a very small element indeed in relation to it. The great advantage of Dudley Zoo is that it is giving a splendid use to one of the finest medieval castles in the country. Where knights once rode animals now play. This zoo is a great resort for the whole of the Black Country, and Dudley ought to be supported if only because her zoo is very superior to that in Regent's Park. As a small boy I spent some time as a visitor in the zoo at Regent's Park; as a Member of Parliament I had to take a number of my constituents over that zoo a few months ago and, so far as I could see, no improvement had been made in the long interval between those visits.
While the animals at the London Zoo are merely accommodated in stables, those in the Dudley Zoo are as far as possible in their natural surroundings. Our Black Country is very much ahead of the Metropolis in many of its educational advantages, and I ask the Committee to do all that it possibly can to support the admirable work of Dudley in trying to give to the Black Country a really admirable zoo, far superior to anything which the Metropolis can show.

Mr. Joel: In view of the Minister's reply I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: Is it the Committee's pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 7. — (Repeal of medicine duties.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: This transition from Clause 6 to Clause 7 is illustrative of the extraordinary vicissitudes that take place in the House of Commons in the course of Parliamentary discussion. We leave this edifying and entertaining subject, and now come to one which has


aroused great interest in all sections of opinion. The subject-matter coming before us now is one of those which have aroused the greatest interest in connection with the Finance Bill. I do not propose to make any great claim upon the indulgence of the Committee because I spoke upon this subject during the Second Reading of the Bill, and at that time the House seemed to be in opposition to the proposals of the Clause.
This afternoon we have been inviting the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to weaken the revenue by giving way on some of the proposals which have been made. Now I come to the much more congenial task of asking the right hon. Gentleman to fortify the revenue by refraining from repealing the Medicines Stamp Duties, duties which would benefit nobody by their remission, but, on the contrary, seem likely to raise serious controversy. Since the Second Reading I have given further consideration to the subject-matter of the Clause, and the more I think of it the more inadequate seem to me the reasons for abolishing these duties at this time. I gather that that is a process of mind which has been shared by a very large number of Members of this Committee in all quarters of the House. The chief reason, if my memory serves me aright, why it was proposed to abolish these duties was that the Government were in serious difficulties with regard to the administration of the law. The enactments were described, I believe, as a jumble of legalistic anachronisms, and their distinguishing feature was their inconsistency and ambiguity.
One of the things which has excited my admiration in recent years in connection with the Finance Bill has been the resource and the ability of the Treasury in dealing with difficult situations. Particularly in their efforts to overtake the tax dodger, they have displayed a very high degree of skill and resource, and I cannot think it is beyond the capacity of the Treasury, especially under the leadership of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his great legal experience, to devise the necessary changes in the law which would be adequate to deal with the difficulties apprehended. In any case I would submit that it is not the duty of the Government to abandon revenue

simply because they have reason to apprehend difficulties in administration. If the tax is a sound one and productive of revenue, it is their duty to alter the law in such a way as to get rid of the difficulties, and that is what I hope the Government will proceed to do.
The situation which will result from the abandonment of the duties is one which is giving rise to very considerable apprehension in many quarters. I should have hoped we were steadily moving in this country towards the adoption of a nation-wide medical service, but if we are to throw over these duties and allow the sale of remedies of one kind and another to go on without let or hindrance as to place, quantity, or description, that can only be an attack upon the national health service of the country. I noticed in the "Times" of 8th June a statement made by the chairman of one of the largest proprietary medicine businesses in the country to the effect that the proposed abandonment of these duties was one of the most important things that had happened in the country to the great medicine business, and he said it opened up an entirely new vista. I am inclined to agree, but the vista, so far as I am concerned, is anything but a pleasing one. What in fact does it mean? The health of the people of this country is, I am glad to believe, steadily improving in all directions, but if there is to be a great expenditure of money upon advertising nostrums, quacks, and remedies of one kind and another, or even beneficial remedies, it can only mean that that advertising and expenditure are being devoted to making healthy people consume more medicines or more remedies of one kind or another.
We had occasion to consider in this House, in the early part of the Session, a Measure which gave rise to considerable controversy, but which was, I think, in the main beneficial, and that was the Bill for organising treatment and efforts in connection with the dreadful disease of cancer, and the Minister of Health in that connection deplored the use of advertisements of quack remedies and nostrums of one kind and another. If these licence duties are done away with, the way is flung open for any slot machines or any nostrums or devices or remedies in any quantities that anybody wishes to sell. This is a matter which has aroused wide interest in every section of the House,


and there are many Members who wish to speak upon it. I can only express the hope that on this occasion we shall invite the Chancellor to fortify the revenue instead of weakening it by acceding to the wishes of a majority of the Members.

9.51 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I do not think there can ever have been an occasion in this House within living memory when more than 200 Members have begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue a tax and not to repeal it. I am one of more than 200 Members in all quarters of the House who put their names on the Order Paper to that effect. As my right hon. Friend intimated in his Budget speech, there is general agreement that the present duties are archaic and should go, and I may add that there is general agreement that they should be replaced by something better and more effective. The proposal to leave out the Clause will give the Government the opportunity during the next 12 months to reconsider the whole matter. It has been going for 100 odd years and can very well go over for another year and meanwhile they will be in a position to reconsider the whole thing in all its bearings, which are much wider than those merely of the revenue. Meanwhile the status quo, which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have negligently allowed to remain, although they knew the difficulties into which they were getting, can well remain until we can reconsider the whole question.
The desire on the part of the House, signified by more than 200 Members, to defer repeal has a further significance. It is the expression of a conviction that the removal of the Medicine Stamp Duties will, unless others are substituted, facilitate the expansion of a trade which, to put it mildly, urgently needs control and restriction. I should like to mention that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on 27th or 28th April, within two or three days of the Budget, issued a circular to the trade in which they intimated that the duty was to be repealed, in which they gave the full details—I have the circular before me, and I shall be glad to show it to any hon. Member— and in which they intimated that there would be a refund in certain circumstances of Stamp Duty and of stamps already in the possession of members of the trade.

Mr. Fleming: What was the date of that circular?

Sir A. Wilson: 1 am told that it appeared in the pharmaceutical papers on 28th April, but the date is a blank. I think the Commissioners of Customs and Excise might have waited at least until the Finance Bill had been in print and had received a Second Reading. There was no Financial Resolution necessary, and I apprehend that this, particular procedure is not covered by what is known as the Bowles Act, the Provisional Levy of Duties Act of 1913, although it may possibly be so covered by the practice of the House, but that is incidental and by the way. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in announcing this decision on 25th April, was at pains to emphasise the archaic nature of these duties, which no one questions, and gave three reasons why alternative duties proposed by the Select Committee were unacceptable. The three reasons were (1) genuine medicines of real healing value would be taxed; (2) there would be difficulties in administration; and (3) he had received many objections to the proposals of the Select Committee. A month later, he gave two other reasons:
The Select Committee's alternative scheme is not practicable; that the present duties are unworkable and we are challenged whether we are working them lawfully. I am advised that it would be impossible to say that they are being worked lawfully as a practical scheme." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1939; col. 2597, Vol. 347.]
I propose to deal with each of these three points separately. With regard to the first, the taxation of genuine medicines of real healing value, we are all agreed that they would be taxed under the Select Committee's scheme and to a greater extent than at present for they are in many cases taxed at the present time. Whatever the original intention was in regard to the duty 130 years ago, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise do not in practice maintain any attempt to distinguish between the relative values of the various drugs. I can see no objection to taxing proprietary medicaments and preparations, whether medical or quasi-nutritive, whether aids to beauty or to health, to sleep or to relieve pain. Broadly speaking, taxation is necessary. The line will always be hard to draw, but it can be and should be drawn; it


has not proved difficult to do so elsewhere. We shall be the only country in Europe and almost the only country in the world except the United States of America, certainly the only part of His Majesty's Dominions, where patent medicines and proprietary medicines are not taxed.
The Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health in his Annual Report for 1934 almost invited the taxation of medicines, even of the sort prescribed by doctors. On page 69 of his report he says:
A considerable proportion of the total outlay on drugs prescribed by the medical profession, averaging 3s. per head, could be limited without detriment, indeed with advantage to the proper treatment of the people.
A year later in his report he said:
In some areas insured persons have acquired a habit of medicine drinking which the practitioners of those areas are reluctant to control. It has been stated by representative practitioners that a very large proportion of the present physicing of the population is wholly unnecessary and that if all doctors felt themselves free to order only such medicinal treatment as in their unfettered judgment they considered necessary, the total cost of prescribing would at once fall spectacularly. It is difficult to reconcile ourselves to the wasteful expenditure on drugs of large sums which otherwise would be available for more effective means of treatment.
He did not, however, go as far as Oliver Wendell Holmes who told Harvard Medical School:
If the whole materia medica could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind, and all the worse for the sea.
My nurse put it more succinctly:
Remember, child, that doctors think More men have died from drugs than drink.
We do not object to taxing medicines on a reasonable scale, whether of healing value or not. Better tax them than sugar and tea.
The second objection of my right hon. Friend was in regard to difficulties of administration—both of the existing taxes and of those proposed by the Select Committee. I will not differ from my right hon. Friend or from his Department on this matter, but the latter has in the last 2£ years made no attempt to devise an alternative scheme. Is it to go on record, that no scheme can be evolved by the

Commissioners of Customs and Excise for a reasonable tax on medical preparations? We are accustomed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) said, to admire the Treasury's unequalled skill in drawing lines and making distinctions. Has the drug trade defeated them? I find it hard to believe.
Has my right hon. Friend discussed alternatives with the trade interests concerned? I am assured that there have been no consultations, officially or unofficially, with representative interests. Some of the largest druggists in the countries have stated that they were not consulted. The National Pharmaceutical Union and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain were not consulted. If the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will bestir themselves to devise a tax they can do so. Difficulties of administration there must be but I cannot believe that the difficulty of devising a workable tax is insuperable. If there are difficulties of administration to-day, the blame lies with those who for the past 20 years have seen the revenue from this tax steadily decreasing owing to forms of avoidance. Fifteen years ago the tax was bringing in £1,360,000 and to-day £770,000. The blame for that lies on those who have allowed that to happen without in the meantime revising the law.
My right hon. Friend's third point is that he has in the past 2£ years received many objections to the Select Committee's proposals. He has not disclosed the nature of those objections, nor their authors, but I am assured that there is no responsible body in the drug trade who would not prefer a revised tax to repeal. Several trade organisation associations have made that clear. His fourth point is that the Select Committee scheme is impracticable. Again, I will not venture to differ from him, but I suggest it is for his Department, taking that view, to devise an alternative. He seems to think that the Members of the Select Committee, of which I had the honour to be one, feel aggrieved that their recommendations have been rejected and that their labours have come to naught. May I reassure him? We are well accustomed to Departmental Committees which, having sat for perhaps two years, produce an unanimous report and in due course see it pigeon holed. Inquiry into what has taken place during the last ten years in regard to the reports of the


Departmental Committees, would show that more than half have led to nothing. We are quite inured to such experiences.
The Select Committee was not assisted to make alterative proposals by his Department, but the Commissioners of Customs and Excise did not suggest to the Committee that revision was impracticable. They sent their solicitor, who, I am sorry to say, has since died. He told us that our proposals were technically sound. More than that he could not say, and it was not really our business to go further than that. The Committee were not asked to consider whether the tax should be abolished. Their terms of reference were to say how it should be reformed. They were aware that a letter had been written by my right hon. Friend's predecessor to a member of the Committee saying that the Treasury could not contemplate abolition, on the grounds of revenue. If that was the case in 1935, surely it is still more the case to-day.
Lastly, my right hon. Friend says:
 "Not only are the present duties unworkable—they are being worked unlawfully and our action has been challenged.
The firm which has thrown down this challenge is Messrs. Woolworth, whose managing director appeared before the Select Committee, to give evidence. He was very frank. He handed to the chairman of the committee the pleadings which he had put forward in the action. Their action against the Crown was abandoned when the committee was set up.
The action "—
I quote from the committee's proceedings—
was discontinued as it was no longer worth while to indulge in difficult and prolonged litigation as to the true construction of what it is hoped will be amended and clarified as a result of the present investigations.
What has happened since then we do not know, but it seems clear that this firm has got a claim for damages which the Law Officers of the Crown considered might be good. I have heard from other sources that its prospects were regarded as rather doubtful by other good lawyers, but the Law Officers of the Crown, from whom I should never venture to differ, felt that if it went to a jury, as it might, on a claim for damages, a verdict might be given against the Crown. If ever there was an example of the potential danger of these great

monopolistic organisations, it is the fact that a single one of them can be paying so much duty on a single type of goods that it may, on a purely legal technicality, be in a position to put a pistol to the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The managing director said he wanted to sell more drugs, and he could sell far greater quantities in 2d. or 3d. packets than in 6d. packets, and the Stamp Duty prevented him selling in smaller quantities. He instanced aspirin; and he hoped to extend the drug trade very greatly. So it comes to this, that every child who is old enough to go to Woolworth's or some similar institution—I do not want to pillory Woolworth's as such—might be able to buy any drug provided it was not on the list of poisons. I accept the statement of the Chancellor, based no doubt on the opinion of the Law Officers, that taxes were being levied which could be successfully challenged in the courts, but many of us would have preferred to have seen the Government lose the action even if it involved a large refund. I doubt whether Woolworth's have ever paid in any one year more than 5 per cent. of the total taxes on drugs—it seems unlikely—but even if it were 10 per cent., and had the law been altered, the sum they might get from the jury would not have been large. I understand it was an action for damages and not for a refund of the duty, but perhaps I shall be corrected on that point. We should have preferred to have seen the Government introduce retrospective legislation, with which the Inland Revenue has made us painfully familiar. We do not like it in principle but, in practice, if a single firm which makes bigger profits and pays lower average wages to its employés than anyone in the country puts a pistol to the Chancellor's head, we should willingly come to his support.
I turn now to the reasons why proprietory medicaments in the broadest sense of the word should be taxed. There are two. In the first place they are a suitable subject for taxation, which will bring in anything from£3,000,000 to £5,000,000, or more if cosmetics were taxed. The other is that taxation will facilitate control. Control without taxation is impossible. My right hon. Friend says this


is a matter for the Minister of Health and it is for him to bring in a Bill, but he quoted him as saying that he does not think the repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duty need have any adverse effect on the nation's health. I can only say that the Minister of Health's loyalty to the Chancellor has led him to a view which is inconsistent with anything that his own Department has said and contrary to the opinion of every medical man I know. It is not the view of Lord Dawson or Lord Horder, who have unburdened themselves very freely on the subject in another place. It is not the view of the chief medical officer of the Ministry of Health nor of the British Medical Association.
Taxation would have the effect of limiting the sales of drugs to some extent to pharmaceutical chemists by cutting out the 3d. pack, and the removal of the tax will create a fresh vested interest which it will be exceedingly difficult to ignore in future. Does anyone seriously believe that it will not have an adverse effect upon national health? I know of no responsible medical man or common-sense individual who does not view it with alarm. I gather from the intervention of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) on 25th May that he is inclined to regard drugs as ordinary commodities which have hitherto been a protected market for the pharmaceutical chemist. I agree that they have had a certain protection hitherto, but we 200 Members hold that they should have that protection. Pharmaceutical chemists are as necessary as doctors. They are an integral part of the National Health Insurance service. They are, by agreement with National Health Insurance committees, under contract to be available seven days a week in turn in various areas. The co-ops—in various areas. The co-ops—

Mr. Alexander: I do not want the hon. Gentleman's argument to be spoilt by the interruption, because we have 250 pharmaceutical departments with qualified chemists.

Sir A. Wilson: I make no reflection on them—they dispense drugs wholesale and retail besides making them. They have 250 qualified men who are available in case of emergency. They are a valuable element. It is not right in our view by abolishing this tax to put such men at a disadvantage. They ought to be pro-

tected in some degree from competition by grocers, cheap-jack stores and hawkers.
The repeal of the tax will discourage the publication of formulae. This is a matter of real importance. There was sold in the United States three years ago an elixir which caused 93 deaths in three months. It was not on the list of poisons. It was made by a very reputable firm and placed on the market, and before sales could be stopped it had killed 93 people. Here again the chief medical officer of the Ministry of Health says in his 1937 Report:
This regrettable occurrence well illustrates the dangers that may arise from the distribution of new drugs or new forms of known preparations without adequate experimental chemical tests. It also emphasises the absolute necessity in all such cases of full disclosure of formulae. In this instance, had the presence of certain chemicals been disclosed some at least of the physicians who prescribed the preparation would have refrained from doing so.
He goes on to say that it is essential that there should be genuine disclosure because a bottle was recently marked with a single word of 40 letters. My right hon. Friend will doubtless say this is a matter for the Ministry of Health, but most of us have lost all hope that the Ministry of Health will promote a Bill dealing with proprietary medicines. Such a Bill was put forward in 1920 and it went through all its stages in another place. The Ministry of Health was then in the first flush of youth and was interested in health. It was virtually an agreed Bill and one of the greatest value. It passed through all its stages on 6th August, 1920, in another place, and then a hidden hand strangled it. We never heard of it again. At least 10 attempts have been made by private Members since then to get a Bill on that subject through Parliament. They have all failed, and now the Postmaster-General has taken a hand.
In the 5s. stamp booklets to be bought at Post Offices, you will find drugs being advertised which have been specifically and deliberately banned by name by the whole Press of Fleet Street as being too fraudulent for any Fleet Street newspaper—and they are not in all cases squeamish. There are other advertisements accepted by the Postmaster-General, which would not be accepted by any reputable paper in Fleet Street, although they have not actually been banned. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General will say that


it is a matter for the Minister of Health. He ought to bring in a Bill to prevent his colleague from advertising medicaments which are notoriously dangerous, and may cause suffering, misery or death to His Majesty's subjects, in advertisements which until quite recently were circulated under the Royal Arms. We are grateful to him for removing the Royal Arms and using the words "G.P.O." We would sooner have the Royal Arms back and the advertisements out.
I beg of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this matter, not from the point of view of a purely revenue matter, but as a matter affecting the health of the whole nation. It is impossible, as I see it, to differentiate between taxation in this matter and control. We beg of him to let the tax remain for another year, or until he can devise a new remedy, and then willingly we will give our wholehearted support to him in any reasonable taxation which will cover proprietary medicines as a whole. The health of the nation is at stake. It is impossible for the Minister of Health to do anything without the co-operation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Customs and Excise, and I must repeat, that many of us have the strongest objection to having a pistol put to our heads by a single firm. Wool-worths abandoned their action two and a-halt years ago, and they have now revived it. We do not know what the sum at stake is, but we would far sooner lose it than have this pistol put to our heads. We object to a single firm being in a position to dictate to this House what the taxation should be. If there have been what is known as gentlemen's agreements, I hope that they will be revised by the Gentlemen of this House.

10.18 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I feel that I must begin by adopting the unusual course of complimenting that Member of the party opposite who has just spoken on the admirable survey he has made of the whole situation. I intend to deal with this matter purely from the health point of view, because I believe, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said, that this is preeminently a health matter, but I would put it more strongly still. I would say that the repeal of this tax amounts to an attack upon the health of the people of this country. I do not propose to

give an elaborate survey, as the hon. Member has covered the ground so fully, but I want to give some simple statements that have been made to me. Many hon. Members will have received a great deal of correspondence, some of it in the form of duplicated letters, which become monotonous if you read one or two of them, but I would like to read one paragraph from a written letter from a chemist in my constituency which really puts the matter in a very simple form indeed. He says:
I feel that the repeal of this duty will be greatly to the disadvantage of the general public and, in addition, it will be a great injustice to all young pharmaceutical students who are spending much time studying the properties of drugs.
That is really the essence of the whole thing. The repeal of this duty will be a grave injury to the health of the people. It will, of course, be of tremendous advantage to certain large interests. The indication by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was proposing to repeal this duty was received with a whoop of joy by certain circles in the City, and everyone who has studied the prospectuses of the patent medicines trade knows that there have been some big financial flotations, not to say financial inflations of a really disgraceful character in the patent medicine racket. It is these companies who now welcome the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with such wholehearted enthusiasm. Whether he is pleased with those who are supporting him I do not know. The work of the patent medicine vendor is based on an exploitation of fear, and is buttressed by the prostitution of medical terminology in the service of boosting quack remedies. That is a plain statement of the situation. There is a great amount of money in it. The Select Committee point out in their report, published two years ago, that at a moderate estimate the trade amounts to £20,000,000 a year. How is that trade built up? I quote from the Select Committee's report:
It is built up by making the people, largely the poor and the less well educated, spend more money than they can afford on remedies of little or no efficiency with an accompanying indirect danger to health as a result of their not seeking medical and surgical treatment in time. … This trade is based on an appeal to fear.
Why should the Chancellor desire to repeal this duty without substituting some method of control upon a trade which eminently needs, and ought to have,


some control? If the Chancellor desires to contribute to human happiness, is he going to do it by making them consume more of these patent medicines? Would it not be much better to take off something more from the Entertainments Duty rather than give an opportunity to them to buy patent medicines which are of no use to them? If this duty is repealed what will be the effect? Let me read the moderate statement of a pharmaceutical organisation:
Unless some further change in the law is made any person or persons can, from September next, make and supply medicines to the public through any vendor or automatic machine, without disclosing the composition of the medicines sold. This will most likely result in a great increase of so-called cures of unknown content for self-medication, which would constitute a grave public danger.
The only method of sale they have not adopted is the method adopted by the ice-cream companies, who have young men on tricycles going round with a notice "Stop me and buy one." If this proposal passes the Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be immortallised in the future as the "Stop me and buy one Chancellor of the patent medicine industry," and I am sure it will give great satisfaction to him to realise that he has thrown open the whole gamut of fraudulent and spurious patent medicines to be purchased by any person. It is a perfectly scandalous proposal. It is a danger to the public, and a grave injustice to the pharmaceutical chemists. It will further depress their status. That status is already depressed by the very unfair competition of huge chain-store organisations, and it has long been the opinion of a good many medical people that the status of the trained chemist and druggist ought to be raised. In France, they are on a higher professional level than in this country, and to them is confided the whole business of making up and prescribing medicines. I think we should be in a very much better state in this country if that were done rather than that we should throw the gate wide open to every kind of adulterated and patent medicine of a secret kind and of unknown composition. I agree, as I think everybody who has looked into the matter will agree, that it is absolutely necessary that the whole question of the Licence Duty and the method of control of patent medicines should be carefully looked into and revised. Let me quote the final

words of the report of the Select Committee, which stated that there was a need for a
system of examination and registration of all advertised medicines and appliances.
That applies not only to medicines, but to medicinal beverages, semi-nutritive foods, deaf-aids and a large number of other appliances of that character which at the present time are palmed off on to uneducated and ignorant poor people at grossly exaggerated values, and which do damage to them. That is a very serious injustice, and I cannot see any possible justification for the Chancellor bringing forward this proposal. Of course, it will be of benefit to the multiple companies of all kinds, but it will be a serious danger to the general public; especially the poorer and less educated members of the public. If the Chancellor persists in his desire to repeal this tax, there ought to be given from the Government Front Bench an unequivocal undertaking and understanding that they will bring forward legislation to control the whole of the patent medicine and patent instrument industry, for only in that way can they justify what otherwise will unloose a very serious danger against public health.

10.29 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate have used so many strong and powerful arguments against the Clause that it is. rather difficult to find anything new to say, and at this stage of the Debate I shall not attempt to do so. I have no doubt that the whole Committee will be very interested to hear the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the arguments that have been adduced so ably, strongly and convincingly, and which I venture to suggest do represent a very strong feeling in the country. The retail chemists unquestionably have a very definite grievance under this provision of the Finance Bill. After all, the retail chemists are a statutory body. They have a course of training of many years. They have to submit to certain regulations, and to pay a registration fee, licence fees, and so on. The retail chemists are a definite protection to the-public. As the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) explained so clearly, they have been given a statutory position in the State, because they provide facilities.


of a character which cannot be provided by any other class. I consider that the provisions of this Clause will have a very serious effect upon retail chemists. Not only the retail chemists, but all the drug trade and all the medical profession, and, as far as I am aware, a large body of public opinion in this country, are at the moment completely mystified as to why at a time when the State is in greater need of revenue than it has been in living memory, we should throw away a matter of £1,000,000 a year, while at the same time, according to the best recorded thought and opinion that I have been able to gather, jeopardising to a great extent, the public health of this country.

10.32 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: For the first time, I think, since I have been a Member of the House, I find myself in hearty agreement with my colleague who has just addressed the House. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think very carefully before insisting upon a Division on this Clause. Some time ago, when we were debating Clause 3, the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he had decided to withdraw the tax on films, because, as he explained, it had taken time for his experts to discover just what the repercussions of that proposal would be on the country. I ask him whether his experts have decided and have informed him what the repercussions of this Clause will be on the country. I feel that we all forgave the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Clause 3. He made such a pitiful plea to the Committee that we agreed it was, perhaps, impossible to anticipate what might happen when that tax was applied. I feel that the Chancellor in this case ought not to wait for the expert's decision to make up his mind. He ought to realise to-night, what the sense of the Committee is. This Committee is not a body of experts. It is a body of men and women of average ability, but they are people, I believe, who understand this question, and, in my opinion, the person of average ability is sometimes even better than the expert in these matters.
I am not exaggerating when I say that if the Chancellor allows Clause 7 to stand he will be aiding and abetting a gigantic swindle throughout the country. In fact, in my opinion he will be a party to defrauding the public. This may sound like

exaggeration, but in my view the language is not adequate to the occasion. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that if this tax is repealed an opportunity will be given to every bogus patent medicine vendor to flood the market with any preparation he likes, without any obligation to put the formula on the box. That is the crux of the situation. It is curious how gullible the public are. I have no doubt in my own mind that there are many Members who have bought a certain preparation, sold for 5s. a box, which guarantees to cure varicose veins and diseases of the blood, kidneys and heart. This preparation, which is to be found in any chemists's round about this House, actually contains .05 per cent. of sugar of milk and just a trace of calcium phosphate. Sugar of milk is 2s. a lb., and this particular preparation costs 2£d. to make up, and the gullible public, believing that their varicose veins will be cured, pay 5s. for it.
That is only one example of what happens to-day, when there is some strictness. Imagine when the whole market is flooded with these people, who are just waiting to deceive. I do not worry a bit about the varicose veins of anybody who pays 5s. a box to have them cured. What I am worried about are the sick and the poor, who need protection against these exploiters. I have heard it said that chemists want this because, after all, they gain as a result of the Medicine Duty. That is a complete fallacy. The chemists will gain much more if this duty is repealed, because they will have a hundred more quack preparations in their shops which they can sell to the poor and the sick over the counter. What is the attitude of the chemists? Chemists oppose the repeal for this reason, that they have spent many years in becoming qualified, and many of them feel that they are prostituting their science to these bogus patent medicine vendors. Not only that: I feel the patent medicine manufacturer uses the chemist as a part of this great confidence trick on the public; because the simple man or woman who goes to the counter to buy some mixture feels "It must be all right, because this nice looking man in the white coat behind the counter would not deceive me."
Then there is the question of the formulae, which is extraordinarily im-


portant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer feels, perhaps, that the public are prevented from getting poisons because of certain regulations, but that is not so. A few months ago there were certain preparations on the market containing iodine which were being used by young girls for slimming purposes. It is all very well, perhaps, when the middle-age spread is approaching, to use these iodine preparations, but it is exceedingly dangerous for young girls to use iodine preparations. I would remind the Chancellor that there were two or three fatal accidents as a result of overdoses, and these preparations were withdrawn. Now we are opening the market again to those who put on to it these harmful drugs. I would remind the Chancellor of a horrible stuff called Yadil and of a paper called the "Daily Mail," which revealed the fact that Yadil was being used and was having a very bad effect on the health of the people because it contained formalin. Here, while there is an agitation to limit the operation of these manufacturers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aiding and abetting these people, who are, in my opinion, a danger to the public.
Another point is with regard to the cough mixtures which are sold to the public and which are entirely valueless. A manufacturer knows that if, as the result of giving an overdose of his cough mixture to a child, a fatal accident occurred, the sale of that particular preparation would cease forthwith, and it is a fact that there are on the market at the moment cough mixture preparations which are so useless that a baby a year old could swallow the whole bottle without any ill-effect. People ask, How is it done? Why is it that these preparations have such a colossal sale. As regards prices, it will have been noticed that there are many preparations which appear to have a standard price, and, in the case of many of them, the standard price is 1s. 3d. That is made up somewhat as follows. The preparation itself and the packing generally costs about I£d. The distribution costs five-eighths of a penny, show cards about 1d., the wholesaler gets 2d. and the retailer 3d. That leaves about 5d. or 6d., which is spent on advertising. In other words, these colossal sums of money are used simply to deceive the public.
If people believe the advertisements which we see on our hoardings and in our newspapers, it shows that there is something sadly lacking in our educational system. But they do believe them. They believe that certain beer is good for you; they believe that, if you drink a certain something at night, you will be able to make your speech the next day. They believe all these curious slogans. These things are not sold because of their intrinsic worth, but because these people whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now going to aid and abet employ the finest advertisement experts and psychologists in order, in my opinion, to mislead the public. Therefore I ask the Chancellor to protect those people who are in need of protection, and who will be exploited if he allows this Clause to go through.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: This has been quite a long Debate, and the Chancellor is faced with a difficult position in not having had, so far, a single Member of any party in the House speaking in support of this action on his Budget statement. I think it would be wrong for anyone who appeared, as I did, before the Select Committee as a witness, and gave evidence in accord with the Chancellor's decision, not to say so in this Chamber when the matter is being considered. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), who has spoken for the Amendment, was also a member of the Select Committee, and I hope that hon. Members, in deciding how they will vote on this matter if it goes to a Division—I do not know what the Chancellor's attitude is going to be—will consider, not merely the parts of the report of the Select Committee which he put before them, but the whole of that report.
Certainly, I have never had any interest in serving Messrs. Woolworth's. I represent an organisation of 8,500,000 people mainly of the working class, and we have no room for support of a small limited company with more or less of a monopoly existence. We have a pretty wide experience of these sales of patent medicines. We are aware that there is a certain amount of misleading advertising of these medicines. We have always been against the wide advertisement of worthless remedies. We are prepared to say that


in our long experience in two classes of business—with ordinary stores which have a licence to sell patent medicines over the counter, and with proper pharmaceutical establishments with qualified assistants in charge—the great danger is that to hand the medicine over with a Government stamp will give it an imprimatur in the eyes of the uninformed.

Sir A. Wilson: Is it not a fact that no guarantee is written on the stamp?

Mr. Alexander: I know that that is perfectly true, but no doubt the same thing happens as with many a workman who signs a receipt for workmen's compensation and does not know what he is signing. I can only speak from the testimony that we have had from those who have been experienced in the business for a long time. It is from that point of view that I put this case. [Interruption.] I hope the Committee are prepared to listen. After all, some of us who do not agree with the point of view of those who spoke against this remission have listened to them for a long time, and nobody has spoken in support of the remission. I put the case to the Select Committee that the range of duties was unnecessarily high, and ought to be reduced or abolished. We who appeared as witnesses were never informed of what the hon. Member has said, that there was never any question of the Select Committee being allowed to abolish or revise the duty; but we said that we were in favour of abolition or revision. We pointed out that the duty on many remedies that people were entitled to have was as high as 25 per cent. Who can justify that? What check is it on a remedy which is worthless? None at all, because if people can continue to have those remedies on sale without giving any formula, the duty stamp, so far from stopping the sale, will lead many people to buy these things.
I would say to the hon. Member that, amongst other reasons—it is not the whole reason—for the reduction in the quantities sold, one is that working-class organisations like our own have established pharmacies very widely, under qualified control. Because large numbers of those remedies no longer have to bear a stamp, much of the duty that used to be paid is no longer paid. From the moment that you are prepared to put on the label what is the formula of your content you no longer have to pay the Stamp Duty.
I think the real remedy for the position is not to reimpose the duty which the Chancellor wants to repeal because it has no effect at all on the question of health. What ought to be done is what I myself recommended to the Select Committee, that where the formula of secret remedies is not disclosed to an independent and qualified body that particular commodity should be banned. If you want really to have control of patent medicines in the interest of the health of the people such commodities whether dispensed by a pharmacist or not should be banned altogether.

Mr. Holdsworth: Why not disclose it to the purchaser?

Mr. Alexander: So far as we are concerned —

Hon. Members: Who is "we"?

Mr. Alexander: So far as we are concerned —

Hon. Members: Who is "we"?

Mr. Alexander:: I will wait until you have finished altogether. So far as we are concerned —

Hon. Members: Who is "we"?

Mr. Alexander: The witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee with me on behalf of the co-operative interests.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Holdsworth: I asked a question, why the formula should not be given on the bottle to the purchaser and not merely to a professional society?

Mr. Alexander: I am entirely in favour of that. In respect of all the preparations of the organisation I have mentioned we print the formula on the bottle and from that point of view there is no need to pay a duty on those commodities. But there is a Stamp Duty which is very often charged on common preparations. From the point of view of health I emphasise that the proper course is for the Minister to tackle this question and set up an independent body and to ban any article which does not come within their approval. I want to make this clear. There has been a very widespread agitation with regard to this matter and it has clearly been engineered by the professional associations concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If I may use the


personal pronoun in this case may I say that I have had so often to appear in regard to pharmaceutical questions on Home Office and other deputations and committees where the professional persons are concerned that I have got to know them and their organisations. I have seen the steps taken to bring this matter before the House of Commons. I have, of course, copies of letters sent to various Members of Parliament but I have also a copy of a document which has not been sent to Members of Parliament but has been circulated to chemists telling them of the steps to take to get the matter before their Members of Parliament.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: What do "we" say to that? [Laughter.]

Mr. Alexander: I do not begrudge hon. Members their little hilarity at this time of night, but if they wait a moment they will see what my argument is. At the moment it has not come to the notice of Members of Parliament that in the document to which I have referred was the instruction that they were on no account to make the document public or to bring it to the notice of their Members of Parliament because they had to remember that the interests of the Pharmaceutical Society and Pharmaceutical Union in the main was not that which would appeal most to Members of Parliament. What they had to concentrate most upon in coming to the Members of Parliament was the question of public health.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

An Hon. Member: Is that a crime? Is anything wrong with that?

Mr. Alexander: From the point of view of the pharmacists nothing wrong at all. I only wanted just to make clear the line on which that body have conducted their campaign. I want also to say that there is a very strong movement in this direction because the pharmacists themselves want to retain the duty. The lesson that we learn from the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin is that they want to retain the duty because it brings an immediate protection to the particular profession. [An Hon. Member: "Why?"] I thank the hon. Member for that question.

Mr. Loftus: A skilled profession such as the medical profession has its protection;

why should not a skilled profession like that of the chemists also have protection?

Mr. Alexander: I am quite aware that the medical profession have protection and I am also quite well aware of how well they do out of the public. There is this further point with regard to the pharmacists. Let me quote a paragraph from the report of a Select Committee which has not been used at all in this Debate. These are the words:
While the original intention of the Act of 1783 was to tax the ' quack ' and to exempt from taxation those ' bred to the profession of physician or apothecary ' your Committee are unable to agree that this original exemption is good ground to-day for giving the modern chemist or registered pharmacist a very valuable preference in the sale of preparations which claim the ' known, admitted and approved remedy ' exemption,
What the pharmacists want on this occasion is to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned back from his course, to get the immediate fiscal protection. I am convinced that they would not be too concerned about the other aspect of the matter if they could get the fiscal imposition of the duty maintained. The real remedy in the interests of public health is nothing of the kind. What you want to do is to get the prevention of sale altogether of the quack remedy which has not a proper formula and which is liable to be harmful. As far as I am concerned, and I speak for myself on this matter — [HON. Members: "Not for ' we '?"] I do not suppose it is the first time that this has been said, but certainly there are not going to be any Whips on to-night. Members of the party on this side will discuss this matter and vote as they like. I should not be doing my duty to my own party if I did not say so when I am speaking. So far as I am concerned to-night, speaking for myself, I should welcome, not in the interests of a monopoly, but in the interests of the great mass of the consumers, a removal of taxation on properly accredited and approved remedies and patent foods, but I would also welcome to-morrow, if the Government would at the same time give it, a pledge to the House, the kind of pledge which the hon. Member for Hitchin was entitled to ask on the history of the industry, the kind of pledge for which we have been waiting ever since the report of the Select Committee of 1914 and for


which we have been renewing our demand ever since the report of the Committee of 1937, and that is that the real health of the people should be safeguarded, not by putting on another tax, but by controlling to their good the quality and the healthfulness of the commodities which are purveyed.

11.2 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: This has been an exciting evening, and much that has been said, all of it in very good temper, puts me in the position, which I find very unusual, that I should have desired in the Finance Bill to lose a little revenue and that quite a large number of hon. Members obviously wish to present me with the revenue which I was prepared to lose. I hope I may have universal support for this proposition, that it is not very likely at this time of day that I want to lose revenue, and I should think everybody must recognise that when this proposal was put in the Finance Bill it was put there because, at any rate in my view, there were very strong reasons for putting it there. I must be allowed, late as the hour is, to state to the Committee what those reasons were. I shall not make any attack on anybody, I shall not describe anything as scandalous, I shall not accuse anyone of trying to support any particular interest; I shall simply try to tell the Committee what the situation was which I found and with which I had to try to deal in the best way I could.
The position first of all is this: These Medicine Stamp Duties, I think we might all agree, are in fact one of the curiosities of the Statute Book. They are in fact, I am bold to say, of such a character that nobody, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), with his great mastery of the subject, could possibly tell the Committee, without constant reference to a book, what they are. They have been described by a learned judge, one who was very skilled in these matters of taxation, as "a mass of confused and obsolete verbiage." They are 130 years old. They were carried at a time when ideas about medicine and cures were very, very different from what they are to-day, and the attempt to maintain them, beyond all question, involves all sorts of ridiculous distinctions. I will not go into them at any length, though I have tried to re-read most of the Sections, but consider the effect of legislation which provides that there is to be a duty

paid if the remedy refers to an ailment of an organ of the body, but there is to be no duty paid if the remedy, the same remedy, refers only to the organ of the body and does not mention the ailment. If you offer kidney pills, there is no duty for anybody, but if you call them "Backache kidney pills," you have to pay tax.
I could give endless examples of the absurdity of the present law. I will give one further example. Numerous drugs— I am not using the word with medical precision—can be sold under fancy names, recommended for the relief of human ailments, and they will escape any tax, because they fall within a definition, more than 100 years old, of a single drug. This law is riddled with absurdities from one end to the other. When the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) spoke, I could not help feeling that a large part of her speech which called attention to these absurdities and disadvantages really went to show that the present law under which all these things have happened is obviously a law which nobody in his senses could justify.
The Select Committee, presided over by my hon. Friend, did work for which I have said we are very grateful. They did a tremendous lot of detailed, hard work which has been a mine of information to me. The first result of their reflections was this:
Your Committee reached the following conclusion, that the existing Stamp Acts, passed over 100 years ago, are out of date, largely obsolete and quite inappropriate to modern requirements.
Then they went on to make a recommendation for a new duty. I think the Committee will agree that I am justified in laying emphasis on the fact that the first conclusion of this Select Committee was that the existing Stamp Acts were obsolete and quite inappropriate, and when they came to their recommendations, the first was, that the Acts of 1802, 1804, 1812, and Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1927, and the other existing legislation on the subject of Medical Stamp Duty should be repealed. They went on to propose other duties.
I think I have satisfied the House and any reasonable person and therefore I must have satisfied the Committee that so far as the existing bungle of ancient statutes on this subject are concerned they are little more than a lot of incomprehensible irrelevancies.

Dr. Guest: Is it not a fact that the Select Committee recommended other measures of control beyond new taxation, in the last paragraph of their report?

Sir J. Simon: I will refer to that last paragraph in a moment. I will tell the Committee quite plainly the first recommendation to which I am calling attention. In those circumstances it cannot be very surprising that the Department over which I preside has been greatly concerned about these duties. There was a second reason for our concern, that whereas originally they produced a much larger sum of money than to-day, various methods have been evolved in the course of time by which in many cases the duty has been evaded, for reasons which were not really good reasons but which were within this ancient legislation. It is true that the administration by the authorities of this tax is challenged, and it is a very serious thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow a challenge to go against a tax which his officers are collecting, and all the more so when the advice I am given is that my position in the matter is exceedingly doubtful. The truth is that it is impossible to apply the Acts as they should be applied. When these ancient statutes were passed a chemist was required to be a person who had been apprenticed by apprenticeship deed. Chemists to-day are not apprenticed by deed but pass examinations.
There are all sorts of difficulties in the way of this legislation. I therefore turned to the Committee's Report in the hope that I should find in it an alternative solution, which I should be very glad to embrace. I do not agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment when he proclaimed frankly his own view that medicines in general should be taxed. At this time of day I think that is a very astonishing proposition. When one thinks how absolutely essential certain remedies are, it is going rather far to say that they should be taxed. I find myself in close agreement with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough. I can well understand that there are questions of public health and public control involved here, but I do not agree that it is a sound view, and I do not think the House should stand for it, that medicines are a good subject out of which to raise taxation.

Sir Francis Fremantle: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the medical profession, does he say that medicines that refuse to declare their contents are proper things to avoid taxation?

Sir J. Simon: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot have been following my speech. The hon. Member for Hitchin said very frankly that his view was that medicines generally were a suitable subject for taxation and I say 1 do not agree with him. I turned to this report to find out if I could get, as I hoped to get, the necessary alternative. I hope that my hon. Friend who put a question to me, does not think that I am saying anything unduly critical when I say that I was greatly disappointed not to find it. What I found in this document was that their view was that there should be imposed a duty on a very wide range of medicines and remedies, practically all medicines and remedies, except those made up from the prescription of the doctor. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!] If that is the view of the Committee as a whole, and it is the right: view, it certainly does not agree with the view that I am disposed to form. I cannot think that it is right to say that on practically the whole range of medicines you can put on such a duty—my hon. Friend says you would get £4,000,000 or £5,000,000—except where there is a prescription written by a doctor. That was the nature of the proposal that was made. I hold the view, and I think the Committee as a whole will agree with me, that really that was not a good alternative. I did not exclude the thing immediately on that account. I did my best, with such advice as I could get, to see if I could find a modification that would be tolerable, and I have to admit that I failed.
What was the nature of the Select Committee's proposal? They took the opinions of a large number of people, including witnesses speaking for the British Medical Association who strongly took the view that the existing taxes were not justified, and asserted that, if one wanted to try and discourage quack remedies, the right way to do it was not by taxation. But having taken evidence, the Select Committee proposed, as I have said, a new scheme of duties. And please observe these points. The Select Committee's proposals had this result. First of all, under their proposals there would have


been no preference to chemists at all. The duties would have been applied just the same whether the bottle or the box or whatever it comprised was sold by a chemist or whether it was sold by anybody else. Any idea. —my hon. Friend, as Chairman of this committee, was the champion —of applying an exemption from duty in the case of chemists in connection with the sale of these articles is quite unfounded. I have the actual words of the report:
All dutiable remedies should be sold on equal terms by chemists and non-chemists.

Sir A. Wilson: In these circumstances, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why Messrs. Woolworth, who had abandoned their action 2£ years ago then revived it and announced their intention of pressing it, in view of the fact that the Select Committee's report, which they were awaiting, and in consideration of which they abandoned their action, had not in fact differentiated against them?

Sir J. Simon: I naturally cannot explain anything of the sort, but I can read what the Committee recommended. That is the point. On page 9 of my hon. Friend's Select Committee's report are these words:
All dutiable remedies should be sold on equal terms by chemists and non-chemists.
When I turn to their conclusions, they say:
It is undesirable the same product should be sold by different vendors, stamped and unstamped.
There was to be equality for everybody; there was to be no difference between chemists and anybody else. The next thing I noticed in the report was that there was no recommendation whatever requiring a disclosure of the formula. It may be that to some people these formulae have a very important and controlling effect. I must say that they are printed in such small type and such long words are used that I am not very much wiser. But there is no suggestion in the Committee's report that there should be any disclosure of the formula.

Mr. Lathan: Was not that due to the fact that it was outside their terms of reference?

Sir J. Simon: I find that very surprising. The Committee, I have no doubt, kept within their terms of reference, but they indicated what they

thought should be the principle of a new duty.

Mr. Lathan: They were constantly restricted by the terms of reference.

Sir J. Simon: I will gladly accept the explanation of the hon. Member.

Mr. Alexander: When we endeavoured to offer evidence before the Select Committee on the formula and control of the formula we were never ruled out.

Sir J. Simon: I find it hard to believe that. The Select Committee were authorised to recommend a new duty, together with all its conditions and terms, but by some mysterious circumstances they were told never to mention the word "formula." Finally we were in this difficulty in examining the report, that a whole range of things would have been brought under the duty, in fact, anything except a doctor's prescription. According to the last words in their report, it would appear that they contemplated the possibility of not only taxing medicines, but all sorts and kinds of foods which might be sold as medicines. For example, they say:
Your committee would urge consideration of the propriety of taxing foods and certain appliances (such as deaf aids), beverages (alcoholic and otherwise) and other preparations widely advertised as possessing properties beneficial for health.
Is it really the general view of the Committee that I should have adopted that alternative? Those were the considerations which came before me. Naturally I did not neglect, nobody would in the circumstances, the public health aspect of the matter. The Ministry of Health were asked whether in their view the repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duties was calculated to have an adverse effect on the health of the nation. The Ministry of Health said, no, they did not think that the repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duties should have an adverse effect on the health of the nation, and they went on to say that the question whether any further control should be imposed either on the sale or on the advertisement of proprietary medicines was another matter and one which was engaging their attention.

Sir A. Wilson: It has, for 20 years.

Sir J. Simon: That is only one-seventh of the time that these absurd Medicine Stamp Duties have been on the Statute Book. I quite recognise what the hon.


Lady said about the sense of the Committee. I am appealing to the sense of the Committee when I ask it to observe what is the situation, therefore, in which the authorities are placed. On the one hand, this is not the time for me to lose any taxes that I can get, and on the other hand, I have, in the case of this duty, overwhelming evidence that the amount which it produces is out of pro portion to the trouble it causes. It does not, in fact, protect the public health at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes it does."] I am only expressing my humble views —

Dr. Guest: Against all the medical and pharmaceutical profession.

Sir J. Simon: I do not think I can be accused of that, since I am relying upon the evidence given by a spokesman of the British Medical Association, Dr. Bone, who, before the Committee, stated that he did not consider that the interests of health were to be served by putting taxes on things, but by regulations.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not want the Chancellor to mislead the Committee in that way. When a doctor makes a statement of that sort, it does not mean that he has circularised the profession and asked their views in any way. He is not speaking for the whole profession by any means. They are his own views.

Sir J. Simon: I could not help feeling, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman who interrupted just now and said that I was making an assertion which was contrary to the views of the medical profession, possibly had not the means of knowing that. I am asking the Committee to observe what is the situation. I am asking the Committee to help me. It is plainly not right that we should simply allow this Debate to finish by my saying that these things had better go on indefinitely. There is a case against them, a very serious one indeed, supported by a Select Committee. I have not myself found it possible to adopt the recommendations made by the Select Committee as an alternative. I hope I have shown those who took so much trouble about it that there are really strong reasons for thinking that the remedy cannot be quite along those lines. At the same time, the sense of the Committee evidently is that they would like, if it was at all possible, to get some new mode of treatment, com-

bined with the repeal of the duties. I have no doubt that is the feeling of a very large part of the Committee. I do not myself feel at all confident that that can be done.
I am perfectly willing to take up with any other Department concerned a further consideration as to whether it can be done, and I think that, in the circumstances, having shown the Committee the seriousness of the case and asked that these duties should not be regarded as things that can be justified and go on as before, I shall be acting in the way which the Committee as a whole would desire, if I say that I am willing to maintain these present duties for another year. But we must see whether it is possible to examine the position, both as regards the possibility of this or any other tax and also as regards the aspect of public health. If that is the view which is taken by the Committee, I am prepared to accept it. I believe that in taking the action which I suggest, I shall be doing what the hon. Lady opposite suggested, and consulting the sense of the Committee.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I should have voted against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal if there had been a Division; but I wish to call attention to the fact that His Majesty's Government are becoming extraordinarily weak in the art of government. Here we have a Finance Bill before the House of Commons, a Measure upon which Government's usually stand or fall. and to-day we have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this Government, with their extraordinary majority, having to collapse twice on two important proposals. [Interruption. ]

The Chairman: I must ask hon. Members to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot remember, on the spur of the moment, any precedent of a Chancellor of the Exchequer collapsing twice in one day on important Budget proposals. I suggest that it is an indication that the Chancellor put these proposals into his Budget without proper thought, without proper investigation, without proper consideration. I suggest that it is an indication that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is utterly


unfit for the high office he holds. Moreover, it is an indication that the Government are not particularly fitted for the art of government. They themselves are humiliated by this double surrender in one day. I am pleased, personally, at the final decision which the Chancellor has reached, but I do say that he only reached that decision because he knew that if he went to a Division the Government would probably be defeated. There would have been a great risk of a Government defeat and Governments cannot be defeated on Finance Bills without resigning. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman gave way. But I wish to place on record that this Government, with its vast majority, this Government whose Members go about the country with an assumption of political and mental superiority over everybody else is clearly a Government which is not entitled to think much of itself. It is a Government which is incompetent to govern and it has a Chancellor of the Exchequer who does not know how to handle the finances of the nation.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. White: As the Mover of the Amendment, I should like to express our satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, as he said, yielded to the views and the common sense of the House and adopted the course which he has announced. This matter was raised by us and by others at the very first opportunity and we have followed it all through its stages, and I would express the hope that during the coming 12 months a satisfactory method may be found of giving effect to the wishes of the House.

11.36 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) whether he wishes it to go forth from this House and from his party, the democratic party, that there is something humiliating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's accepting the almost unanimous opinion of the House of Commons on a matter on which we all feel so strongly?

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"

put, and agreed to. — [Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

Resolution reported—
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems, and for raising money for the purpose of repaying to the Post Office Fund moneys applied there out for such development, it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole forty million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development or of such repayment;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued;
(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer Bonds, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."

Orders of the Day — KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Resolved,
That Captain Sir William Brass be added to the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons)." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [Lords.]

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [20th June] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on the Water Undertakings Bill [Lords] be now considered." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords, to consider the Water Undertakings Bill [Lords].

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Committee nominated of Mr. Alfred Edwards, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. Levy, Mr. Medlicott, Major Mills, and Mr. Rathbone. — [Mr. James Stuart..]

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [21st June] as relates to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee be now considered." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee, as proposed by their Lordships." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Twelve o'Clo